PDA

View Full Version : Liberals hate gays


Pages : 1 [2]

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:00 PM
Hamlet:

You think DADT was a step in the right direction, better than nothing. I don't. I think it was worse than nothing. I think the situation was coming to a head and likely to be resolved. The current state of affairs was intolerable. You had blatant violations of civil rights, investigations of people's personal lives, intrusions of privacy, and witchunts.

These issues were worse and getting more intolerable than the idea of gays in the military, because even the worst bigots have to realize that some are going to slip through. The situation was going to force those against gays in the military to choose which was more intolerable: some gays in the military (which let's face it, have always been there and always will,) or making everybody's life frizzy with witch hunts and what have you. It was a choice between practicality, or racism. DADT gave the bigots a way to hold onto their hate practically, it perpetuated. I believe that withou DADT gays in the military would be a fait accompli.

So no, I think it was a bad idea.

Sorry about the "fuck you." and sorry to back out of the date. If it's any consolation, I don't think you're missing out on much (at least that's what my wife says.)


As for your links and examples, I thought I'd already addressed this issue with Miller.

I look at your examples from the Republican cites and I say what I said before.... The Republicans are open with it. The Democrats are not. They'll vote for DOMA, and Clinton will sign it, while claiming they support gays. Some support. Ultimately it's not what you say you ate gonna do, but what you do, and I don't see the Democrats actually acting in any fucking way that disagrees with what the Republicans are saying.

I kind of went over this several times already.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 09:01 PM
...Not after he spent all that money on new knee pads and a fresh bottle of mouth wash....

Beavis?

Miller
10-26-2010, 09:13 PM
You think DADT was a step in the right direction, better than nothing. I don't. I think it was worse than nothing. I think the situation was coming to a head and likely to be resolved. The current state of affairs was intolerable. You had blatant violations of civil rights, investigations of people's personal lives, intrusions of privacy, and witchunts.

I think you may actually be correct in your assertion that DADT was worse than the situation it was intended to remedy. However, I'll give Clinton this much credit on the issue: he tried to do something about it. He fucked it up, and caved to the Republicans far too easily. But again, if it hadn't been for Republican opposition, the compromise of DADT would never have been necessary, and we'd have had gays serving openly in the military since the early nineties. DADT is a good example of Democratic incompetence, but I don't think it serves well as an example of moral equivalence between the two parties on the subject of gay rights.

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:16 PM
But here's the thing. As fucked up as Obama has been on this issue, the worst that you can say about him is that he's on par with Republicans on the issue. There are, after all, two attacks on DADT currently underway. One is the court case, which would have succeeded, if Obama hadn't knifed us in the back. The other is the bill to repeal it, which would have succeeded if Senate Republicans hadn't filibustered it. Now, if the question is, "Is Obama better or worse than the Republicans on this issue," the answer is clearly that he's worse, because in addition to working against our rights, he also lies to our faces about his intentions. However, if the question is, "Are Democrats better or worse than Republicans on this issue," well, Obama's just one guy. It took forty Republicans working together to stop the vote on repealing DADT from going forward. Oh, and a grand total of three Democrats voted with them. On the other side of the aisle, there were fifty five Democrats, one independent, and not a single Republican. Now, you've argued that those Democratic votes can be dismissed as hot air from people who knew that the vote wouldn't pass. And you may be right about that. But it doesn't change the fact that not one single Senate Republican stood up for what was right on this issue. Not. One.

I think that is a fair and accurate analysis, and I accept it completely. We agree.

"But what about the Log Cabin Republicans?" you ask. Yes, they were the ones who got the issue to court, and good on them for that. But you may not be aware of the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are a group of homos.

NOOOOOO!

(yeah, I kinda figured.)

A homosexual advocacy group advocating for homosexual rights is not really noteworthy. It is unusual that they're a conservative homosexual rights group, but I think it's stretching things a bit to credit their actions to their politics, and not their sexuality.

No, but what seems to distinguish them from liberal activists is that they actually accomplished something.

Lastly, keep in mind that DADT is not the whole of the gay rights movement. What positive actions have conservatives taken for gay rights outside the area of DADT? How many gay marriage bills have been sponsored or endorsed by Republican politicians? As near as I can tell, the number is just about zero. Which, as it happens, is only slightly fewer than the number of bills that have been sponsored by Democrats. And the Dems deserve a lot of condemnation for dragging their feet on that issue. However, lets look at the other side of the aisle again. Twenty nine states have banned gay marriage. Nineteen of them have banned civil unions. Three of them have even banned domestic partnerships. How many of those laws were proposed by Democrats, do you think? How many by Republicans? And note, please, that these are constitutional bans, enacted by the will of the people. I'm not even counting states where gay marriage is illegal by statute.

So, over all, I agree with you that Obama's appeal to the DADT decision was an unconscionable betrayal. And I agree that, overall, Democratic support for gay rights is a lot of hot air. But I don't think you can make a reasonable case that Republicans are in any wise a better, or even equivalent, alternative to the Democrats on this issue. The Dems, on the whole, do nothing to make things better. Republicans, on the whole, are actively working to make things worse. And they are doing so with the approval of the majority of their voting base.

And in all honesty, I don't think they are any better. In all honesty I think that unfortunately the majority of the bigoted people, racists and homophobes are on the right. I even read a pretty good study that showed this was true (while the difference was statistically significant it wasn't as large as you would guess.)

I think the biggest difference is that the Democrats seem to pretend a lot more that they are not bigoted than the Republicans who are more open about it.

Personally, I think it is easier and one is more likely to succeed in arguing against an open opposition, than a hidden one.

waterj2
10-26-2010, 09:20 PM
Oh, I should also mention that quite a number of gay folks will be voting for the Democrats because we're also fairly liberal. Charlie Baker's running for governor, and has an openly gay running mate and all the right positions on gay issues (aside from adding sexual identification to the anti-discrimination provisions, but his running mate's been a supporter of the bill, and I suspect that if the legislature passed it, he'd be reasonably likely to sign it) , but I'm not going to vote for him because I don't generally support the sorts of policies he supports. And the Democrat in the race, Deval Patrick, has been a strong supporter of gay rights as governor (I'd put him in the above-and-beyond category for the necessary arm-twisting to keep even 25% of the legislature from advancing the proposed amendment banning SSM to a ballot question).

Scylla
10-26-2010, 09:26 PM
I think you may actually be correct in your assertion that DADT was worse than the situation it was intended to remedy. However, I'll give Clinton this much credit on the issue: he tried to do something about it. He fucked it up, and caved to the Republicans far too easily. But again, if it hadn't been for Republican opposition, the compromise of DADT would never have been necessary, and we'd have had gays serving openly in the military since the early nineties. DADT is a good example of Democratic incompetence, but I don't think it serves well as an example of moral equivalence between the two parties on the subject of gay rights.

That might be true, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think about it as incompetence. I think it was exactly what they wanted.

If one stands up and solves civil rights issues, than the Democrats can't use them as a platform to get minority votes. And, if you are looking for a group to perpetually screw over to polarize politics, gays are the perfect target. They are a small enough minority to fuck over safely, yet placed across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. They are not immediately identifiable.

Ongoing injustice against gays is a great social issue for the Democrats to have. It would be a mistake for them to solve it. So no, I don't think it was incompetence. I think it was perfect. Give the gays a pyrrhic victory that looks like your doing something for them that actually perpetuates the problem so you can milk it for decades more.

That makes so much more sense than solving it.

Bosstone
10-26-2010, 09:35 PM
Just like doctors and pharmaceutical companies don't actually want to cure illness and disease, because if they do then there's no more patients to take care of, right?

elucidator
10-26-2010, 09:40 PM
Wow, they sure kept it under wraps! No documents leaked....you don't have any documents, right?...no body tattled. No stories on Drudge about the secret Dem anti-gay conspiracy? Which is kinda funny when you think about it, 'cause documents have leaked out about the Nixon Southern Strategy, which should make any decent American hurl. And stories, testimony of people who were there...

And you got, what? Exactly?

Miller
10-26-2010, 09:50 PM
No, but what seems to distinguish them from liberal activists is that they actually accomplished something.

Now hold on a second, there. The finding against DADT was a major victory (or would have been, if not for a certain Muslim from Kenya), and I don't want to take anything away from that, but it's not the alpha and omega of the gay rights movement. Before Stonewall, simply being caught in a gay bar could get you arrested. In many states, you could be institutionalized for being gay. In California, there was a law on the books (never actually used, as near as I've been able to tell) authorizing lobotomies as a treatment for homosexuality. Being outed would almost certainly cost you your job, your house, even custody of your children. Things have changed a lot since then. There is no longer any state in the Union where homosexuality itself is a crime. Many states offer protections for gays in the workplace and the housing market. And it's been a few years, at least, since the last time I read a story about someone suing for custody of their grandkids because their son or daughter turned out to be queer. Every time one of those unjust laws was repealed, or a protective law put into place, it was because some activist group was pushing for it. And almost without exception, in every one of those cases, if you looked at the group's politics, you'll find liberals.

Now, I'm not offering that as an argument for the inherent superiority of liberals on gay rights, because those groups were all pretty queer, too. But the LCR was far from the first group to win a political victory for gays in this country. Actually, the thing I have the hardest time wrapping my head around in this story isn't the ruling, but the plaintiff. To my knowledge, this is the first time the Log Cabin has ever actually done something for gay rights. Up to now, they've been the punchline to a particularly bad joke.

And in all honesty, I don't think they are any better. In all honesty I think that unfortunately the majority of the bigoted people, racists and homophobes are on the right. I even read a pretty good study that showed this was true (while the difference was statistically significant it wasn't as large as you would guess.)

I think the biggest difference is that the Democrats seem to pretend a lot more that they are not bigoted than the Republicans who are more open about it.

Personally, I think it is easier and one is more likely to succeed in arguing against an open opposition, than a hidden one.

I agree with you that the actual degree of bigotry of the individual politicians on either side of the aisle probably isn't that great. I do disagree with you on where the dishonesty really lies. I don't think the Democrats are secretly big ol' 'phobes. I do think they're moral cowards who will consistently choose political expediency over doing the right thing. However, I also don't really think most Republicans are half as homophobic as their rhetoric suggests. I think most of them don't really give a damn about gays one way or the other, but they've found out that giving gays a good public thrashing is good for them in the polls, and so they play it up for the genuine bigots and homophobes among the Republican electorate.

Miller
10-26-2010, 10:06 PM
That might be true, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think about it as incompetence. I think it was exactly what they wanted.

If one stands up and solves civil rights issues, than the Democrats can't use them as a platform to get minority votes. And, if you are looking for a group to perpetually screw over to polarize politics, gays are the perfect target. They are a small enough minority to fuck over safely, yet placed across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. They are not immediately identifiable.

Ongoing injustice against gays is a great social issue for the Democrats to have. It would be a mistake for them to solve it. So no, I don't think it was incompetence. I think it was perfect. Give the gays a pyrrhic victory that looks like your doing something for them that actually perpetuates the problem so you can milk it for decades more.

That makes so much more sense than solving it.

I've heard people make the same argument about the Republican party, and abortion. Could be there's something to it, but it doesn't strike me as all that likely. Thing is, there's only a few places in the country where being pro-gay really helps you. Out here in California, or over in New York, taking a pro-gay stance generally plays well with the voters, and helps get those celebrity endorsements. Most of the rest of the country, a pro-gay stance is a liability. Reportedly, Kerry took a pretty big hit in 2004 because he was perceived as favoring gay marriage, despite his regular statements to the contrary. An internally, it causes problems because the two largest minority blocs in the Democratic party are pretty virulently anti-gay. I think most Democrats would prefer that the gay rights issue be settled, already. Failing that, they like it if gays would just shut up and vote for them, and not make any waves about being treated like real people.

marshmallow
10-26-2010, 10:44 PM
Oh, I should also mention that quite a number of gay folks will be voting for the Democrats because we're also fairly liberal.

Never really thought about that before but it makes sense given the blending of gender traits seen in homosexuals. Does that mean butch lesbians tend to be more conservative?

42fish
10-26-2010, 10:51 PM
42fish:

Boy, you got me there!...

But lets go with that hypothetical. In real life, its never this cut and dried, but let's just pretend.

You make the decision. You can have total marriage equality and an end to DADT. But if you do, you let the law on latinos being stopped and questioned stand. Assuming, as I do, that marriage equality is going to happen, and that DADT will be dead in a matter of weeks or months. Not years. Which would you choose?


I'll borrow your ability to blithely assume that marriage equality is coming one day soon irregardless to make the equally blithe assumption that a court's going to strike down the stop-and-question law as blatantly unconstitutional. Wow, working together we've hypothetically solved two problems with no muss and no fuss.



And how would you explain your decision to the people you would have to disappoint?


Apparently, I should blow smoke up their ass about how we're all part of a grand coalition fighting for "Truth, justice* and the American way" and hope they don't ask awkward questions. At least you seem to think it will suffice.


*Except justice for gays 'cause that would complicate things too much.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 11:22 PM
Well, now, 42, that was meant as a fair question. If you want to sneer it off, thats your privilege, you have no obligation to me.

42fish
10-26-2010, 11:41 PM
Well, now, 42, that was meant as a fair question. If you want to sneer it off, thats your privilege, you have no obligation to me.

What sneering? After all, we're part of a team. And by pulling that rope together we've managed to hypothetically solve both gay marriage and anti-Latino profiling. Makes me feel all hypothetically warm and fuzzy.


Or to put it another way: Writing your hypothetical so that it boils down to "Since we all know gay marriage is coming anyway, would you allow anti-Hispanic discrimination to exist just to speed up the process?" is such blatant well-poisoning that I gave your "fair" question an equally fair response.

elucidator
10-26-2010, 11:59 PM
Then pick your own. A black issue compared to a latino issue, it doesn't matter, its a hypothetical. The question is how does a leader elected to make tough decisions make this decision, i.e., which oppressed minority gets how much political capital. Assuming that the supply is not infinite, which I take as a pretty safe assumption. On what basis do you judge?

Assuming you want to at least appear impartial, if not actually want to be impartial, how do you judge? Do you try to determine which group faces the most oppression? How? Or would you judge on the basis of numbers, which group is biggest? Assuming that the more people who suffer injustice, the more the injustice?

Its an honest question and deserves an honest answer, regardless of what you may think of the person asking it. If somebody else asks it, will that make it respectable?

Miller
10-27-2010, 12:36 AM
Then pick your own. A black issue compared to a latino issue, it doesn't matter, its a hypothetical. The question is how does a leader elected to make tough decisions make this decision, i.e., which oppressed minority gets how much political capital.

Okay, here's my hypothetical. You can have the Arizona law repealed, but only if you have all the gays rounded up and put in camps. If you don't round them up, the law stays on the books, forever and ever and ever. Which choice do you make?

And remember, complaining about the inanity of the hypothetical isn't allowed!

elucidator
10-27-2010, 12:57 AM
...Yeah, the Arizona immigration law sucks, and should be changed. But if, for some reason, it became a choice between one or the other: get gay marriage now, or repeal Arizona's law, I'll take gay marriage. Sorry, Latinos, I guess its your turn to wait for your rights, for a change...

You already answered the question. They'll wait for theirs "for a change". I guess because they've had it so good, all this time....

Miller
10-27-2010, 01:20 AM
You already answered the question.

Yeah, but you didn't. Which is it? ID law, or gays in camps?

elucidator
10-27-2010, 02:31 AM
Concentration camps for gays? Sorry, I simply cannot give that question the contempt it deserves.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 06:38 AM
I must say that I am flummoxed by the tangential discussion in this thread. I expect sophistry and word twisting in a Scylla thread, but I don’t expect that someone other than Scylla will stand out for doing so. Yet Miller is engaging in some world class word-twisting here. One problem here is that the thread title indicates liberals, but we’re talking a lot about Democrats. The two are obviously not equal. The DLC of the Clinton era was a centrist, moderate group. Obama is a centrist, as are many Democrats.

Trouble is, I agree that the Democrats have been craven, spineless wimps. I think they have been so on most issues, and especially when it comes to civil rights. I also think that compromising on civil unions versus marriage is bullshit. I think DOMA was a travesty driven by political calculation. I think DADT was better than Hunt Gays Down and Kick Them Out, but I’d much prefer a Let Americans Serve in the American Military policy, and liberals would fight for that. Centrist Democrats would make political calculations and gently push in the right direction. Republicans and conservatives would push for whatever might be on the other side of Hunt Gays Down.

elucidator says it all quite well, even if you want to mock him for it. Liberals fight for the rights of everyone. It’s a liberal principle. If you want to get pissy because you want liberals to fight for you at the exclusion of everyone else, too bad. That would be at odds with the principle. In terms of positions regarding current civil liberties concerns, I take my marching orders, as it were, from Glenn Greenwald. He is gay, but he must be insufficiently gay, because his primary concern appears to be for the principles behind civil liberties, not for special interests regarding civil liberties for some and not others.

So, I encourage you, as I always do, to vote your conscience. I suggest that you vote for every single candidate whose position is exclusively for gay rights. Screw everyone else! No principled stands! Latinos, women, African Americans, American Mulsims, Americans with Disabilities, people with mental illness – go do things to yourselves. It’s us and us alone! If you feel I’m twisting the words of anyone in this thread, then knock it off yourself.

If on the other hand, you feel it best to vote for the candidate who comes closest to representing your position on issues and your general principles, even if it means that they may not fight hardest on your position, then get in line. I can guarantee you that on improving matters in terms of gay rights, it won’t be the conservative, Republican or Tea Party candidate.

42fish
10-27-2010, 06:55 AM
If on the other hand, you feel it best to vote for the candidate who comes closest to representing your position on issues and your general principles, even if it means that they may not fight hardest on your position, then get in line. I can guarantee you that on improving matters in terms of gay rights, it won’t be the conservative, Republican or Tea Party candidate.

If luci had been arguing "If you agree with the Democrats on health care/immigration/etc., don't let their dropping the ball on gay rights dissuade you from supporting them," then fine. I largely agree with that.

Hell, if he went with a Realpolitik "Face it, getting minimal attention from the Democrats still beats what you're going to get from the Republicans, so don't cut off your nose to spite your face," I'd grit my teeth and admit the point.

Instead, we get "We're all part of a grand alliance so smile and take it whenever the leadership rewards your support by selling you out." Coupled with the occasional sanctimonious hint that kvetching about the situation means that I'd gladly sell out the Latinos/the uninsured/etc. to get mine.

42fish
10-27-2010, 07:04 AM
Then pick your own. A black issue compared to a latino issue, it doesn't matter, its a hypothetical. The question is how does a leader elected to make tough decisions make this decision, i.e., which oppressed minority gets how much political capital. Assuming that the supply is not infinite, which I take as a pretty safe assumption. On what basis do you judge?

Its an honest question and deserves an honest answer, regardless of what you may think of the person asking it. If somebody else asks it, will that make it respectable?

Fine. My honest answer is: I'm not the leader elected to make tough decisions. I would handle President Obama's job at least ten times worse than he is doing. Despite that, I still think I have the right to criticize him when I feel he's screwed the pooch on an issue.

42fish
10-27-2010, 07:10 AM
Concentration camps for gays? Sorry, I simply cannot give that question the contempt it deserves.

Yeah, Miller, ask only 'fair' questions. Like, "How willing are you to sell out the Hispanics to get gay marriage?" Nothing at all loaded about that, nosiree.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 07:28 AM
Instead, we get "We're all part of a grand alliance so smile and take it whenever the leadership rewards your support by selling you out." Coupled with the occasional sanctimonious hint that kvetching about the situation means that I'd gladly sell out the Latinos/the uninsured/etc. to get mine.I think I missed it where elucidator said that. I'd be obliged if you wouldn't mind actually quoting him on that.

What I've read is elucidator saying that the general principle of civil rights means that no one group is put to the fore, kind of like three horses abreast. Then others come back and say "Aha, you're saying we are second class citizens" and referring to his "gay horse" analogy. When he has tried to make the realpolitik argument that you say you would grudgingly respect, it gets turned around into "you want concentration camps for gays."

This style of argument is slimy and disgusting and as much as I might agree with you and Miller generally, I find the posts in this thread loathsome. (And remember, this is a Scylla thread about how liberals hate gays, yet it's not his posts I'm most troubled by. I guess it's a "what do you expect from a pig but a grunt" kind of thing.)

Bricker
10-27-2010, 07:35 AM
What a palaver, what an absolute treat,
To see a cat and its father pick a bone in the street.

[/Les Mis]

Hamlet
10-27-2010, 07:46 AM
Scylla

I guess we're back to your proposition that it is better to actively work against a group than do too little to help them. That proposition is, to me, a big ole pile of rationalized crap. But what really amused me was when, in the very same thread, you defend Republicans as better because "at least they're honest about it", and then spend a great deal of time denying that they do by saying that all your Republicans don't care about sexual orientation or race, that it's the Democrats who keep raising it. That speaking out of both sides of your mouth made me smile.

No, but what seems to distinguish them from liberal activists is that they actually accomplished something.Just one quick question. Do you think that the LCR were the only ones to file lawsuits about DADT? That somehow they were at the spearhead of the court challenges to DADT? Because it seems to me that you want the Republicans to get all the praise, while ignoring the other lawsuits filed by liberal groups, that were either rejected or still pending. The ACLU, individual servicemembers, and other liberal groups have been fighting this fight for as longs as, if not longer, than the LCR.

42fish
10-27-2010, 08:13 AM
When he has tried to make the realpolitik argument that you say you would grudgingly respect, it gets turned around into "you want concentration camps for gays."


The only "concentration camp for gays" mention is from Miller's mocking of elucidator's loaded hypothetical.


And, FWIW, I have no doubt that luci is sincerely in favor of gay rights. If he were somehow in charge of things, I'm sure we'd have equality on that front and it might even be worth the daily Kum-by-ya sing-alongs*.

I'm also willing to concede that I may be taking the issue too personally and reading more into luci's posts than he intended.

And with that, I'm bowing out because: (1) if I'm not taking it too personally now, I'm sure I'm going to if I continue in this thread; (2) it's not nearly as enjoyable nitpicking with someone who, in the final analysis, you agree, say, 80% with than bitching at people who are unequivocally wrong.



*That's a joke, son, I say, a joke

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 08:53 AM
[...]And, FWIW, I have no doubt that luci is sincerely in favor of gay rights. If he were somehow in charge of things, I'm sure we'd have equality on that front and it might even be worth the daily Kum-by-ya sing-alongs*.[...]

*That's a joke, son, I say, a jokeI know - that would be totally gay, right?

Thanks for being the bigger person in this thread.

Don't Call Me Shirley
10-27-2010, 09:06 AM
elucidator says it all quite well, even if you want to mock him for it. Liberals fight for the rights of everyone. It’s a liberal principle. If you want to get pissy because you want liberals to fight for you at the exclusion of everyone else, too bad. That would be at odds with the principle. In terms of positions regarding current civil liberties concerns, I take my marching orders, as it were, from Glenn Greenwald. He is gay, but he must be insufficiently gay, because his primary concern appears to be for the principles behind civil liberties, not for special interests regarding civil liberties for some and not others.


I think you miss the point. This is not a situation where gays are asking Dems to fight for their rights to the exclusion of the Latinos. It's not like the Dems are advancing some pro-Latino idea that just happens to retard the progress of gays. The Dems are pandering to the worst kind of bigotry by opposing gays to try to win favor with the religious Latinos. Don't you see that? The Dems are not advancing the Latino cause here either. They are, in my opinion, setting back the progress of Latinos and gays and whites and blacks and everyone else. You cannot cave to religious demands. You are only teaching the fanatics that they can get whatever they want. Do you think that's the last thing they're going to want? Do you think the fundies are going to be happy with just leaving DADT in place? No. We've seen what the fundies want.

You talk about the "principle" that liberal are fighting for, civil rights for all. The worst thing you can do if you want civil rights for all is to get in bed with religious fundamentalists.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 09:57 AM
You talk about the "principle" that liberal are fighting for, civil rights for all. The worst thing you can do if you want civil rights for all is to get in bed with religious fundamentalists.I think you are continuing to erroneously conflate liberals and Democrats. I can think of few Democrats who I am comfortable calling liberal. As I said, I believe the current Democrats are craven, calculating and spineless. (I think that they are that way because they've allowed themselves to be figuratively beaten into submission on most issue by Republicans, so I see Scylla's argument here like some asshole administering a "two for flinching" punishment.)

But at times, the issue has been about liberal principles, and elucidator has been mocked for trying to describe them. And other posters here have turned right around and argued from a position that sounds like "If you don't put us first and foremost, you're against us."

If your argument is that the current Democrats, led by Barack Obama, have failed to be leaders on civil rights issues, at times even hurting the cause, we have no differences.

Miller
10-27-2010, 10:05 AM
But at times, the issue has been about liberal principles, and elucidator has been mocked for trying to describe them. And other posters here have turned right around and argued from a position that sounds like "If you don't put us first and foremost, you're against us."

Name one poster who has said this.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 10:37 AM
Name one poster who has said this.Okay - I don't buy the idea that open hostility constitutes an improvment over benign neglect. Or even over benign neglect accompanied by elucidator-eqsue "We're all in this together for justice. Now, stop rocking the boat by complaining about being treated as a second-class citizen" sanctimony*.

You have three horses. Two of them are regularly fed and well treated. The third is half-starved and badly whipped. I ask you why you treat the third horse so poorly, and you respond, "It would not be wise to advance that horse in front of the others."

Now, as you can clearly see, that's a crazy and incomprehensible response to the question. So, when you first said it would be "unwise to advance our interests over theirs," I assumed what you were trying to say was, "Blacks and Latinos are pretty homophobic, and we don't want to risk pissing them off, so you gays are going to have to go fend for yourselves, because you simply aren't important enough to have your concerns addressed."

Bosstone
10-27-2010, 10:41 AM
Neither say what you want it to say.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 10:55 AM
Neither say what you want it to say.

They say just exactly what they say. Since they appeared to be offered in contrast to elucidator's point, I assumed they were intended to be. If they weren't then I return to simply being flummoxed and look forward to an explanation as to what they are supposed to mean.

Bosstone
10-27-2010, 10:58 AM
They say just exactly what they say. Since they appeared to be offered in contrast to elucidator's point, I assumed they were intended to be. If they weren't then I return to simply being flummoxed and look forward to an explanation as to what they are supposed to mean.You say they are examples of people wanting to be put first, when the argument is just that they want to be considered equally rather than be shoved back for the sake of currying other favor.

Though to be strictly specific, the examples you quote don't say anything one way or the other.

Miller
10-27-2010, 11:00 AM
They say just exactly what they say. Since they appeared to be offered in contrast to elucidator's point, I assumed they were intended to be. If they weren't then I return to simply being flummoxed and look forward to an explanation as to what they are supposed to mean.

I don't understand any part of this post. It's like something out of Lewis Carrol.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 11:03 AM
I don't understand any part of this post. It's like something out of Lewis Carrol.Hmmm. Maybe it isn't elucidator who is somehow causing this communication problem then.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 11:06 AM
You say they are examples of people wanting to be put first, when the argument is just that they want to be considered equally rather than be shoved back for the sake of currying other favor.

Though to be strictly specific, the examples you quote don't say anything one way or the other.I thought Miller was expressly clear on the point. He said:

I ask you why you treat the third horse so poorly, and you respond, "It would not be wise to advance that horse in front of the others." [...]

I assumed what you were trying to say was, "[...]so you gays are going to have to go fend for yourselves, because you simply aren't important enough to have your concerns addressed."It seems pretty clearly stated there that it's either one horse gets advanced before the others, or our interests aren't recognized at all.

But again, I look forward to hearing what it really is supposed to mean. Miller, on the other hand, appears to not be in a mood to help clarify things.

42fish
10-27-2010, 11:23 AM
They say just exactly what they say. Since they appeared to be offered in contrast to elucidator's point, I assumed they were intended to be. If they weren't then I return to simply being flummoxed and look forward to an explanation as to what they are supposed to mean.

As one of the two people quoted, I meant pretty much what Bosstone said:


...the argument is just that they want to be considered equally rather than be shoved back for the sake of currying other favor.
(Edit: Although, you could add "political expediency" in place of "currying other favor," too.)


Well, that and that luci's tone in his posts set my teeth on edge. But, on sober reflection, tone seems like a particularly assinine reason to go on pitting someone for umpteen pages. For that, I prefer the other poster both having an annoyng tone and being dead wrong: damn near anything by Starving Artist, for instance.

Bosstone
10-27-2010, 11:25 AM
Requoting what you quoted:I ask you why you treat the third horse so poorly, and you respond, "It would not be wise to advance that horse in front of the others."Nowhere does Miller make it his argument that the third horse should be in front. He's claiming elucidator is saying it shouldn't be put in front. If you want to point out whether and how Miller is twisting elucidator's words, be my guest, but that's not an outright statement that Miller wants his horse in the lead.

Personally I think the whole thing is stupid. It's akin to people bitching about trivial Pit threads, asking, "Doesn't the OP have anything better to think about?" It's entirely possible to be concerned with several things at once, and that's just one person, not an entire bloc of voters. It's a weird situation posited in this whole thread that only one group can be considered at a time.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 11:49 AM
Requoting what you quoted:Nowhere does Miller make it his argument that the third horse should be in front. He's claiming elucidator is saying it shouldn't be put in front. If you want to point out whether and how Miller is twisting elucidator's words, be my guest, but that's not an outright statement that Miller wants his horse in the lead.

Personally I think the whole thing is stupid. It's akin to people bitching about trivial Pit threads, asking, "Doesn't the OP have anything better to think about?" It's entirely possible to be concerned with several things at once, and that's just one person, not an entire bloc of voters. It's a weird situation posited in this whole thread that only one group can be considered at a time. I agree with you that it’s weird to suggest only one group can be considered at a time.

Also, I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge I've misread things. For instance, I misread 42fish vis a vis his attributing anything about second class citizenry to elucidator. I think he was wrong to suggest that elucidator had even implied that nobody should complain about it, but I agree that the status quo is to treat gay people as second class citizens.

However, I don’t think Miller could have been any clearer. (Well, actually I do think he could have been clearer, but for some reason he has chosen to be a pissy little word-twister in this thread, so functionally I don’t think he actually could have been clearer.) He even made a point of restating what elucidator said, although twisting it a bit nevertheless: you respond, "It would not be wise to advance that horse in front of the others."and he goes on to say (in the part you didn’t quote) that he assumes elucidator meant: you gays are going to have to go fend for yourselves, because you simply aren't important enough to have your concerns addressed.So sure, he doesn’t say that he feels his horse should be put first, but he clearly says that if his horse is not advanced, he assumes it means that gays are not important enough to have their concerns addressed.

Simply, if they are kept on par with others, they are in fact not important enough. What else could that imply but that to be given the importance they are due, they have to be other than on par (e.g. put first)? I am honestly interested in learning how I am misunderstanding this.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 11:52 AM
Miller:

I quote you. You paraphrase me. I say it waddles like a duck, quacks, and floats., and is a duck. You say that I explicitly stated that its a witch. But you don't quote, you twist my words into a new shape to fit your narrative.

But I quote you. I take what you actually say, as above, to witless:

...Yeah, the Arizona immigration law sucks, and should be changed. But if, for some reason, it became a choice between one or the other: get gay marriage now, or repeal Arizona's law, I'll take gay marriage. Sorry, Latinos, I guess its your turn to wait for your rights, for a change...

Now, just imagine that you were somebody of importance, some political heavy-hitter for the gay rights cause, and you said that in public. How long do you think it would be before Turdblossom had that plastered over every Spanish language site he could find?

"See? See? The gays will sell you out in a heartbeat to advance their agenda!" And he wouldn't even have to twist your words to fit, he'd just be flat out quoting you! Christ Jesus, but you're stupid!

And again, what's your plan? Are you going to overcome our enemies with the sheer weight of your numbers? Not likely. Now, I got a plan, and it bites. Its full of compromises, and deal making, and going along to get along, and I don't much like it. I'd much rather sweep aside our enemies in a glorious electoral massacre! I'd also like a pony, and Rachel Maddow. I might get the pony.

Its a painful plan, a slow plan. You got a better one, lets see it. Bring it, tough guy, show us what you got. But so far when that question is posed you want to change the subject to what an asshole I am. OK, I'm an asshole, so are you, what's your fucking plan!

Because if you don't have one, what good are you? If you won't lead, won't follow, how about you just get out of the way, and the rest of us will see what we can do about this.

And maybe you'll reflect for a while, and come to realize you've got to suit up, put on your cleats and get in the fucking game. Our enemies are rich, powerful and ruthless, and we need all the support we can get. Goddess help us, even yours.

Oh, before I forget, kumbaya, motherfucker! That's a Swahili word meaning "Kiss my Nixon". Well, no, it really isn't. And that would be the only false thing I've said so far.

mhendo
10-27-2010, 12:12 PM
Simply, if they are kept on par with others, they are in fact not important enough. What else could that imply but that to be given the importance they are due, they have to be other than on par (e.g. put first)? I am honestly interested in learning how I am misunderstanding this.Without getting into the horse analogy too much, here's one thing that might be worth considering:

The difference, right now, between gays and other groups is that the status quo actually has gays behind, not level. While you can certainly make an argument that some other groups that tend to support Democrats, like African Americans and Hispanics, suffer from de facto inequality due to a variety of circumstances. And you can also argue that it is the role of government to address that inequality.

The difference, for GLBT folks, is that they suffer from not only de facto but also de jure inequality. The military was desegregated decades ago; Loving v. Virginia ensured the right to interracial marriages; and anti-discrimination laws include race and ethnicity. In all of these areas, gays suffer either from laws and measures specifically directed against them (DADT; DOMA; other laws and state constitutional amendments against gay marriage), or from the fact that they are excluded from protections that are offered to other historically-disadvantaged groups (anti-discrimination laws).

So, an argument that that gays be simply treated equally requires, first, that they are actually made equal. And this will necessarily involve placing those issues of gay rights at the forefront until that equality is achieved. Discriminatory laws don't just expire or disappear by themselves; they require active opposition.

Of course, here's the one area where the OP of this thread actually has a small point. The Obama administration had an opportunity to effectively allow the demise of a discriminatory law by doing nothing, because the Log Cabin Republicans had done the work of opposing the law in their lawsuit. I appreciate the argument that the Justice Department's job is to defend the law, but it also seems to me that there are some ruling that they contest, and some that they don't. I don't see why this couldn't have been one of the latter.

On the issue of coalitions and rocking the boat, i don't think that Obama or the Democrats should pander to the homophobes in their constituencies by going slowly on this issue. I think they should make it clear that this is an important issue of principle. And this is especially the case with DADT. It is my impression that there are plenty of people who oppose gay marriage but who still believe that DADT is pointless and unjust. While an aggressively activist stance supporting gay marriage might hurt the Democrats in their own constituencies, i don't think the same thing applies to DADT. I know military guys here in San Diego who supported Prop 8, but who think DADT is stupid.

Anyway, that was a bit rambling, and it's still not really clear to me whether i've answered your question.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 12:28 PM
Anyway, that was a bit rambling, and it's still not really clear to me whether i've answered your question.I appreciate the effort! I actually understand and agree with most all that. I would quibble that it's quite impossible to determine the relative degree of injustice perpetuated by society in regards to different groups, such that their relative rankings in some horse analogy should be adjusted by x or y degrees. I think the point really is that in principle all horses should be treated equally, and the fight needs to be for everyone until the goal is achieved.

My point had more to do with the specifics of this back and forth than with the larger issues, because that's what I'm quite perplexed by. It's been a bit like watching a match in which someone hit a tennis ball over the net, and it gets returned as a volleyball.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 12:37 PM
Well, I can't speak for Hentor, but I can say I can't and do it anyway.

I take your point, but is a really hard sell. How many latinos have relatives or loved ones under threat of deportation? Don't know that, but willing to guess its quite a few. And that's the law. About as de jure as you're likely to get.

And whether or not we actually favor gays above them isn't the question. We have to avoid even the appearance of such a thing. As you may have noticed, a lot of folks are really, really touchy about this shit.

Now, the upside is it appears that our service members are mostly on board, thank goodness. And many of them are Hispanic, so we can expect they will say to their family "Hey, its all right, Mamacita, a gay guy can pull the trigger just as quick as I can." And thats huge because its personal and direct.

I certainly see the point about letting the court ruling stand, grabbing it and running as fast as we can. But I also see Obama's point, or at least how I interpret it.

He cut a deal with the brass hats. They wanted time, and he said "OK, I'll give you that, but in return you gotta stand with me in front of Congress and say "Yes, lets ditch this piece of shit DADT."

Because a court decision can be overturned. An Executive Order can be overturned. But if he marches down to Congress with the brass hats behind him, and Colin Powell, and Ted Olson, he's got a real good shot at making this The Law. And that law cannot be overturned as easily as the other alternatives, its a major win that is likely to put the final seal on this nasty thing.

I don't quite agree with him, but I see his point. And if he doesn't win in Congress, he still has other things he can do, he has a Plan B. Always good to have a Plan B.

I think his heart is in the right place in this, though I have doubts about his tactics. But hey! He's the politician, and I'm just a hippy. And he's proven me wrong once already, he got elected and I didn't really think he could do it. I'm a pessimist, I love surprises!

Maybe, just maybe, he knows his business better than I do. Possible.

mhendo
10-27-2010, 12:55 PM
I take your point, but is a really hard sell. How many latinos have relatives or loved ones under threat of deportation? Don't know that, but willing to guess its quite a few. And that's the law. About as de jure as you're likely to get.
But you're missing an important distinction here.

Yes, it's true that plenty of latinos have relatives affected by immigration laws. Living in San Diego makes one acutely aware of the significance of immigration policy on the lives on many latinos. And you're right that deportation is "as de jure as you're likely to get."

An important difference, though, is that immigration laws are not written specifically to keep latinos out. It happens that, due to particular geographic and political and economic circumstances, most of the people who are subject to deportation are from Mexico and points south. But the rules themselves apply to anyone here illegally. I was well aware, before i got my green card, that overstaying my visa would not only make me subject to deportation, but could put any future attempts to enter the US in jeopardy.

I'm not denying that race and racism are issues in the debate over immigration policy. I'm not even arguing that the policy itself wasn't shaped by a certain amount of nativism or xenophobia. You only have to look at a long history of immigration-related laws in America (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1982; Geary Act of 1892; National Origins Act of 1929, etc.) to know that unsavory prejudices have been important in formulating border policies in this country. I'm not even arguing that there hasn't been some imbalance in the way that immigration laws are enforced, with more resources directed to keeping brown people from crossing the border than, say, keeping white college students from overstaying their F1 visa.

But the fact that latinos are disproportionately affected by laws prohibiting illegal entry is not really a function of discriminatory language within the law itself. The law prohibits everyone from illegally entering the US, from overstaying, and from working without authorization. The laws against gays, like DADT and bans on gay marriage, are specifically aimed at that group. And that's the sort of thing that governments can and should fix quickly and forcefully, IMO.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 12:59 PM
Good points, and well stated. I'm not an immigrant, I'm a Texan and that's as American as you can get, but proud to have you with us!

Shit, this train wreck is in danger of becoming a sensible adult conversation. Somebody say something really stupid, quick!

Ludovic
10-27-2010, 01:00 PM
This is concern trolling, pure and simple.

If Democrats were to stick to their guns on this issue, we'd have Scylla in here tearing out his hair because the "Democrats are too committed to tilting at windmills that they're not doing anything about the economy."

Instead, we have Scylla pretending to be the defender of a certain issue, and giving Democrats "helpful advice" on how they should pursue their own interests, which would actually be destructive to their cause if actually pursued.

Either that, or Scylla really does believe Republicans hate gays far less than the Democrats do, but I respect him too much to think he believes that. So concern trolling it is.

mhendo
10-27-2010, 01:03 PM
...Chinese Exclusion Act of 1982...That should, of course, be 1882.

42fish
10-27-2010, 01:20 PM
Shit, this train wreck is in danger of becoming a sensible adult conversation. Somebody say something really stupid, quick!

From the SDMB random hot topic generator:

I demand that we circumcize kittens!

(Will that do to get a trainwreck back on track. Or off track, I suppose.)

elucidator
10-27-2010, 01:26 PM
I can haz 4skin?

Hentor the Barbarian
10-27-2010, 01:27 PM
From the SDMB random hot topic generator:

I demand that we circumcize kittens!

(Will that do to get a trainwreck back on track. Or off track, I suppose.)Nice try, but come on. This was a thread started by Scylla to advance the argument that liberals hate gays. It was never supposed to be anything but a trainwreck.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 01:48 PM
Well, if you want the little fucker to stop clilmbing up into your lap and purring, thats sure one way of doing it!

The kitten. Not Scylla.

mhendo
10-27-2010, 03:04 PM
Nice try, but come on. This was a thread started by Scylla to advance the argument that liberals hate gays. It was never supposed to be anything but a trainwreck.Exactly. It was, as Ludovic suggests, concern trolling.

I have no doubt that the OP really does support the repeal of DADT, but this thread is based upon a completely disingenuous interpretation of the politics surrounding the issue, and concern about the actual issue was clearly secondary to getting in pot-shots at Obama.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 07:06 PM
Scylla

I guess we're back to your proposition that it is better to actively work against a group than do too little to help them. That proposition is, to me, a big ole pile of rationalized crap.

Yeah, to me, too. And for the 87th fucking time, that is not my proposition. Obama did not do nothing. Doing nothing would have been great. Obama actively fucked gays over.

My point is that it is better for somebody to tell you they are going to fuck you over and do it, than for somebody to tell you how important you are to them and how much they value and then fuck you over.

In both cases you're getting fucked over.

How you consider Obama seeking to overturn the court decision as "doing nothing," is beyond me.


But what really amused me was when, in the very same thread, you defend Republicans as better because "at least they're honest about it", and then spend a great deal of time denying that they do by saying that all your Republicans don't care about sexual orientation or race, that it's the Democrats who keep raising it. That speaking out of both sides of your mouth made me smile.

Well, that's nice. Sadly it was likely a Forest Gump kind of smile. To understand, try this: "Republicans" is plural, meaning there are more than one. Not all Republicans are exactly the same.

If I say "black people are neurosurgeons," and then later say "black people are criminals," does that also make your eyes light up with the dull intelligence of a cow, thinking you've caught a contradiction?

Just one quick question. Do you think that the LCR were the only ones to file lawsuits about DADT?

No.


That somehow they were at the spearhead of the court challenges to DADT?

Absolutely! They got it overturned, didn't they? That's what the point of the spear does. It sinks deep and does the damage. What they did stuck. It sunk in. That's what a spearhead does.

Or, maybe not. Maybe you are using "spearhead" to mean "pointless and innefectual" in which case I'd say the Democrats were the spearhead.

Clearly Obama considered what the Dems were doing to be pointless and innefectual. He seemed a little miffed that the Republicans didn't get the message and actually accomplished something.

Because it seems to me that you want the Republicans to get all the praise, while ignoring the other lawsuits filed by liberal groups, that were either rejected or still pending.

Yes. In this one fucking particular instance I do. Every time some Republican group or person does something that bigoted or racist there's a thread on it, and inevitably that one particular instance is used as a general indictment of all things Republican, and the entire Republican party and all its members are painted as racist or bigoted.

No Republican ever gets the benefit of the doubt on an issue pertaining to race or sexual preference because you all know Republicans are racist bigots. Well guess what? That simplistic bullshit just isn't true.

Last week a group of gay Republicans got DADT overturned. On that very day a Democratic President threw the entire gay populace under the bus, in one of the worst political betrayals in the name of expediency that I've ever seen, and got DADT put back (because you know, he wants to win the elections and not piss off the religious vote.)


BY WHAT FUCKING LOGIC SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS NOT GET ALL THE PRAISE FOR OVERTURNING DADT IN THE COURT CASE LAST WEEK????

The only Democrat involved totally fucked it up and put it back. You want me to praise the Democrats? For what, putting it back?



The ACLU, individual servicemembers, and other liberal groups have been fighting this fight for as longs as, if not longer, than the LCR.


Well yes, that's kind of the point. They got beat by the Log Cabin Republicans. I'll say it again "The Log Cabin Republicans." Not really the most powerful and fearsome political group on the planet, are they?

Try this: if I say "Hamlet the Log Cabin Republicans are pissed at you, and are out to get you." What is your response? How scared are you?

Now, if I say "Hamlet, the ACLU, The NAACP and a whole bunch of other groups are out to get you." What is your response? A little different, huh?

The Log Cabins succeeded where all these other mighty and powerful and well-funded engines of liberal change failed.

HUH?!?

Suppose your local pee-wee football league took on the the Patriots and won. What would you think? Do you think the Patriots were really trying to win?

As soon as somebody else won for them, they undid it.

That really fucking happened last week.

The group that has been selling you a pile of shit about how much they want to repeal DADT and has claimed that they've been working diligently do it for, and all they ask in return is your vote. Well, through no action or fault of their own, they accidentally won the game last week. What did they do? They put it back.

And you want to give them credit?

Scylla
10-27-2010, 07:14 PM
This is concern trolling, pure and simple.

Is that so, Tanto?

If Democrats were to stick to their guns on this issue, we'd have Scylla in here tearing out his hair because the "Democrats are too committed to tilting at windmills that they're not doing anything about the economy."

You quoted me from a hypothetical future?

Instead, we have Scylla pretending to be the defender of a certain issue, and giving Democrats "helpful advice" on how they should pursue their own interests, which would actually be destructive to their cause if actually pursued.

I can't recall any "helpful advice" that I've offered Democrats, destructive or not. In fact, I don't think I've offered the Democrats any advice. Do you have a cite for this, or did you also derive this nugget from the same alternate future you derived the previous quote?



Either that, or Scylla really does believe Republicans hate gays far less than the Democrats do, but I respect him too much to think he believes that. So concern trolling it is.


urmmm, so concern trolling it is.

Yoda?

Anyhow, I'm not sensing much respect, and, on preview I'm seeing that Hentor and Mhendo seem to agree with (which is never a good sign for an argument.)

But, it was fun responding to you. You make it pleasant.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 07:20 PM
Miller:

I quote you. You paraphrase me. I say it waddles like a duck, quacks, and floats., and is a duck. You say that I explicitly stated that its a witch. But you don't quote, you twist my words into a new shape to fit your narrative.



I feel your pain. I feel your pain.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 07:22 PM
Can somebody tell me what's up with the whole Horse thing Hentor going on about?

It sounded like he dropped acid while listening to "The Soft Parade."

(and somebody let us know if he's ok after that. We worry about you Hentor.)

elucidator
10-27-2010, 07:28 PM
The Log Cabin Republicans brought the suit. OK, but big deal. That is the suit that was accepted by the court, no? And after that, it goes through the legal millwork and is ground into tiny grains of jurisprudence.

But aside from bringing the suit, what further influence do they have? Do they stand around in groups and glare gayly at the Court? Did that Miranda fellow, was he the spearpoint of defendant rights, did he make it happen? Or was he just some shmuck who got busted?

elucidator
10-27-2010, 07:30 PM
...It sounded like he dropped acid while listening to "The Soft Parade."...

I got a minute. Tell me everything you know about dropping acid.

Richard Parker
10-27-2010, 07:35 PM
Putting aside your asinine argument that Presidents should only enforce the laws they agree with, you have no idea what you're talking about when you say LCR won where the ACLU and others have failed.

The ACLU has been making the identical arguments the Log Cabin Republicans made, and has been doing so longer. The difference is not that the Log Cabin Republicans somehow did something more than the ACLU, but because the national political climate has changed enough to make a Judge comfortable with buying the argument -- including but not limited to Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs having declared that the policy needs changing. Also, unlike in DADT cases brought before 2008, in this case the Justice Department refused to offer witness testimony or to offer any defense of the rationale other than to point to the legislative history. Which is basically their minimal institutional obligation. Notably, the ACLU finally won a similar case in Washington State before the LCR case, but the LCR cases final injunction came out sooner.

In July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled unconstitutional a section of DOMA in a suit brought by GLAD (one of those liberal do-nothing groups you deride). In October, the ACLU got Florida's gay adoption ban overturned. I could go on and on.
I guess those are empty or irrelevant victories in your mind, since Republicans didn't win them.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 07:41 PM
I got a minute. Tell me everything you know about dropping acid.

Ok, there was this funny bit on SNL where Dan Akroyd was playing Jimmy Carter on a news shows, and this guy called in who was freaking out that he dropped acid and Jimmy Carter er Dan Akroyd helped him. It was funny.



And... That's about it. How much time do I have left?

Hamlet
10-27-2010, 08:04 PM
I snipped out a bit. If you have a problem with that, just let me know. Simply repeating that Obama fucked up on appealling DADT, a point which no one is contesting, got a bit tedious and added nothing but the opportunity for you to get all whiny.

How you consider Obama seeking to overturn the court decision as "doing nothing," is beyond me.It's not beyond you, hell, you're the one who made that up and attributed it to me. I've said repeatedly that Obama has fucked this up. In fact, I'm having trouble finding anyone in this thread who disagrees with that.

Well, that's nice. Sadly it was likely a Forest Gump kind of smile.Nah. I was the kind of smile patient Special Ed teachers give to their students who try hard, but just don't get it. Soon, though, maybe you will. To understand, try this: "Republicans" is plural, meaning there are more than one. Not all Republicans are exactly the same. Says the guy who titled the thread "Liberals hate gays". Now THAT is funny.

Absolutely! They got it overturned, didn't they? That's what the point of the spear does. It sinks deep and does the damage. What they did stuck. It sunk in. That's what a spearhead does.

Or, maybe not. Maybe you are using "spearhead" to mean "pointless and innefectual" in which case I'd say the Democrats were the spearhead.There have been over a dozen of constitutional attacks on DADT, from the ACLU, from HRC, and from a multitude of other liberal organizations. They were filing these cases before the LCR ever got involved. The fact that the particular judge who heard the case ruled for them had fuckall to do with the fact they were Republicans.

BY WHAT FUCKING LOGIC SHOULD THE REPUBLICANS NOT GET ALL THE PRAISE FOR OVERTURNING DADT IN THE COURT CASE LAST WEEK????Stop making this so easy for me.

Just a few paragraphs ago, you said: "To understand, try this: "Republicans" is plural, meaning there are more than one. Not all Republicans are exactly the same. " and now you're doing the exact same thing.

Usually, finding flaws in someone else's logic can be a tough proposition. But when, in the matter of the same post, you contradict your own points, well, that right there is laugh inducing.

The LCR certainly deserve a great deal of credit for filing the suit and, apparently, hiring very good attorneys to argue the case. Just as the ACLU, the HRC, and the dozens of other liberal groups and servicemembers who have challenged DADT as unconstitutional. Yet, here you are, proclaiming that the actions of a tiny minority of Republicans somehow trump all the other actions the party takes against homosexuals.

The only Democrat involved totally fucked it up and put it back. You want me to praise the Democrats? For what, putting it back?No, for fighting alongside the LCR on this issue. And for fighting Prop 8, for passing the federal benefits law out of committee, for getting Bowers overturned, or any of the myriad of other things liberals have done OVER THE OBJECTION AND ACTIONS OF REPUBLICANS.

The Log Cabins succeeded where all these other mighty and powerful and well-funded engines of liberal change failed.I'm fascinated. To what do you attribute that victory? Their homosexuality? Their Republican-ness? Or could it be something like getting the right judge, making arguments that incorporated other hard fought cases like Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and hiring good attorneys?

ETA: I see Richard Parker did a much better job dealing with this particular point.

Look, we all agree, Obama fucked the pooch on this. Repeating it over and over as if that one thing is the alpha and omega of homosexual issues is myopic at best and dishonest at worst.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 08:13 PM
Putting aside your asinine argument that Presidents should only enforce the laws they agree with,

Well, I suppose you could put that aside if that was what I said. Unfortunately for you, it's not what I said you dishonest turd. The law was overturned. It was declared unconstitutional. It was no longer law. The President swears to uphold the Constitution.

I could see why you would want to lie and put aside the actual argument seeing as responding to it would be a losing proposition.



you have no idea what you're talking about when you say LCR won where the ACLU and others have failed.


Really? I got it wrong, did I?

So you are saying the LCR lost there case?

You are saying the ACLU and others had already gotten DADT overturned before the LCR brought their case?

Because if you are saying I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm wrong, that's what you're arguing. You're arguing that? You are that stupid?

The ACLU has been making the identical arguments the Log Cabin Republicans made, and has been doing so longer.

Really? You have a cite comparing the transcripts of arguments from both cases and finding them identical?

Let's see it.


The difference is not that the Log Cabin Republicans somehow did something more than the ACLU, but because the national political climate has changed enough to make a Judge comfortable with buying the argument -- including but not limited to Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs having declared that the policy needs changing.

Ohhhh, I understand now. Obama actually overturned the case. He did the Jedi mind trick on that conservative judge so she'd accept the arguments made by the LCRs (who according to you plagiarized them from the ACLU.)

Oh, and while other people have claimed figuratively that Obama walks on water this is the first time I've heard somebody argue seriously that he has the power of mind control which works from his ability to harness and change the political climate at will.

That's quite a superpower.

Ok, so he changed the climate for the LCRs and handed them the ACLU cribsheet, and did the Jedi mind trick on the judge, all so they could win the case. I got it. That makes sense. That's very plausible. Good argument. Well done.

Can you tell me why, after he did all that he then sought an emergency stay to overturn the decision?

Ohhhh, I forgot. You already explained that. He was forced to. He had no choice. You didn't tell me why. Was it because evil Republicans put a mind control chip in him like the Manchurian Candidate and flipped the switch?

It makes so much sense now that you're explaining it.



Also, unlike in DADT cases brought before 2008, in this case the Justice Department refused to offer witness testimony or to offer any defense of the rationale other than to point to the legislative history.

Right, because Obama wanted them to win. Except when he did they overturned it?

Makes perfect sense.



I'll just stop here. Your arguments are so bad, they're not even amusing anymore. It's pathetic the lengths you'll go to to somehow pretend a Republican group didn't do this and a Democratic President didn't undo it.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 08:22 PM
Not that simple. A state governor may be deeply opposed to the death penalty, but his office requires that he perform the duty of signing the warrant. He may give a speech or write a statement declaring his disapproval, and his determination to bring the legislature to ban such punishment. But his official duty is to sign the warrant, the law demands it of him, and the law is the handjob of justice.

I think what it is is that Obama doesn't want to win this in the court, he wants to win it in Congress. Just like he doesn't want to to do it by executive order, because the next guy can reverse it. President Huckabee, for instance. And a different activist court might reverse the previous.

So, one his position as the executive branch demands it, and numero two-o, he's looking for a bigger win.

(I know of what I speak about warrants, I've sworn out many of them because of dire crimes commited.)

elucidator
10-27-2010, 08:24 PM
....And... That's about it. How much time do I have left?

Fifty-eight seconds. Switch to decaff.

jayjay
10-27-2010, 08:27 PM
NO ONE has said a Republican group didn't do this. What we're saying is that the LCR is hardly the toast of the Republican party. They're still the group that Republican candidates return the donations from, at least when it leaks to the public that they donated to the candidate.

You're trying to do some kind of jujitsu thing where you take the Democrats' missteps on gay rights issues and try to knock them down and replace them with the Republican party, but it won't work because you've got a HUGE counterweight to overcome: the Republican Party's very public and very extreme homophobia fueled by the religious fanaticism that the party has been cultivating and exploiting for votes for decades.

I have to thank you for one thing, Scylla. If this thread has done anything, it's helped me to make a firm decision to go out and vote enthusiastically for Democrats, despite their foot-dragging on my issues. You've reminded me just how BAD the Republicans are for GLBT folk by trying to convince me that the Democrats are worse (which is, on its face, an absolutely absurd argument).

At this point, I can't even believe that you believe what you're posting, if only because I know you're not insane.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 08:32 PM
I snipped out a bit. If you have a problem with that, just let me know.

You sound like my Urologist.

Simply repeating that Obama fucked up on appealling DADT, a point which no one is contesting, got a bit tedious and added nothing but the opportunity for you to get all whiny.

Well, it seemed like it bore repeating since you were saying Democrats were simply doing nothing rather than working against you. The fact that in this instance they were working against you seemed germain.

It's not beyond you, hell, you're the one who made that up and attributed it to me. I've said repeatedly that Obama has fucked this up. In fact, I'm having trouble finding anyone in this thread who disagrees with that.

Bricker, Richard Parker both seem to think Obama was compelled. A few others have also made the same argument. I truly am sorry if I falsely attributed that argument to you. I hate it when people falsely attribute shit to me, so, sorry. Others have been making the argument, though.

Nah. I was the kind of smile patient Special Ed teachers give to their students who try hard, but just don't get it. Soon, though, maybe you will. Says the guy who titled the thread "Liberals hate gays". Now THAT is funny.

You might have something on me, there.

There have been over a dozen of constitutional attacks on DADT, from the ACLU, from HRC, and from a multitude of other liberal organizations. They were filing these cases before the LCR ever got involved.

Um yeah. The fact they failed dozens of times while the LCR succeded is comforting to you. Can the liberals say something like:

"How dare you give credit to the Republican group, LCR for this. We liberals have consistently failed to accomplish what they have more than a dozen times over the last decade. Therefore the credit for the success goes to us."

I don't see even a politician trying to make that fly.

The fact that the particular judge who heard the case ruled for them had fuckall to do with the fact they were Republicans.

Except for the fact that being Republican seemed to make them competant.

Stop making this so easy for me.


The LCR certainly deserve a great deal of credit for filing the suit and, apparently, hiring very good attorneys to argue the case.

Well, it's nice of somebody to say so. After 7 pages I believe that's the first time somebody besides me gave them an attaboy.

Just as the ACLU, the HRC, and the dozens of other liberal groups and servicemembers who have challenged DADT as unconstitutional.

...and failed to get anywhere with it, or win their case or accomplish anything. What's the prize for losing?

Yet, here you are, proclaiming that the actions of a tiny minority of Republicans somehow trump all the other actions the party takes against homosexuals.

On DADT? Fucking A they do. And, all the good shit that the Democrats had done previously has just been undone by Obama.

I'm fascinated. To what do you attribute that victory? Their homosexuality? Their Republican-ness?

Yup. It's like putting chocolate and peanut butter together. The LCRs are the Reese's cup of political activism compared to the stale Mars Bar (yechh!) of the NAACP, ACLU and the rest of those good for nothing left wing slackers.

(and I already explained this. I don't think they were trying very hard to win.)



Or could it be something like getting the right judge, making arguments that incorporated other hard fought cases like Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, and hiring good attorneys?

Yeah, like trying to win. Unlike the previous efforts.

ETA: I see Richard Parker did a much better job dealing with this particular point.

Heh.

Look, we all agree, Obama fucked the pooch on this. Repeating it over and over as if that one thing is the alpha and omega of homosexual issues is myopic at best and dishonest at worst.

You're right. It ain't the only thing, just the latest and the topic of this thread. Feel free to start another on the past glories of liberals.

Richard Parker
10-27-2010, 08:37 PM
Scylla, if you want reasonable people to debate you, you need to stop pretending that every time they address your argument they've mischaracterized it, and you need to stop doing exactly what you pretend they're doing to you. If you want to start over and try to respond to my post reasonably, like you've occasionally done for others in this thread, I'm all ears.

descamisado
10-27-2010, 08:40 PM
ACORN.i

Scylla
10-27-2010, 08:41 PM
Not that simple. A state governor may be deeply opposed to the death penalty, but his office requires that he perform the duty of signing the warrant.

Well no. Somebody tried that exact argument to defend Bush over all those death warrants he signed. It was pointed out that other governors had simply refused to sign them and then the people couldn't be executed.

Anyway, the analogy doesn't hold up. Obama wasn't being asked to go along with an existing law. The law had been declared unconstitutional. It's as if somebody's death sentence had been overturned and you were saying the Governor is obligated to execute him anyway.

Uh-uh.


I think what it is is that Obama doesn't want to win this in the court, he wants to win it in Congress. Just like he doesn't want to to do it by executive order, because the next guy can reverse it. President Huckabee, for instance. And a different activist court might reverse the previous.

Maybe. I think it would be very hard to de-integrate the military once you had gays openly in there for several years, and again, executive worked quite well in a very similar instance when Truman did it, so I don't buy it. Political expediancy before an election passes the shit test.

So, one his position as the executive branch demands it,

As people simply assert. And when I argue back that it's not true.... nobody responds with a cite saying that the President is obligated to try and put back laws declared unconstitutional.

I'm no longer, but I bet a time or two when a law was declared unconstitutional and the president accepted it.

Why does he have to do this? Why do you guys keep saying he does without saying why or providing a cite?

Bricker? Somebody?

elucidator
10-27-2010, 08:44 PM
Well, ok, if the Republicans deserve credit for this, how come they ain't bragging about it? Unless, of course, they don't want credit for it. Wonder why. Does it rhyme with "probe"?

Scylla
10-27-2010, 08:46 PM
Scylla, if you want reasonable people to debate you, you need to stop pretending that every time they address your argument they've mischaracterized it, and you need to stop doing exactly what you pretend they're doing to you. If you want to start over and try to respond to my post reasonably, like you've occasionally done for others in this thread, I'm all ears.


Well, if you want me to reply that way you need to not mischaracterize my arguments. Next, if you want reasonable arguments back, you need to offer them yourself.

I replied as I thought appropriate to your post based on its content, and upon rereading it, I'm comfortable. Sorry you feel you've been given short shrift.

Hamlet
10-27-2010, 09:05 PM
Bricker, Richard Parker both seem to think Obama was compelled. A few others have also made the same argument. I truly am sorry if I falsely attributed that argument to you. I hate it when people falsely attribute shit to me, so, sorry. Others have been making the argument, though.True. If you're interested, here's more: "Politics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires.

Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point."

Um yeah. The fact they failed dozens of times while the LCR succeded is comforting to you. Can the liberals say something like:

"How dare you give credit to the Republican group, LCR for this. We liberals have consistently failed to accomplish what they have more than a dozen times over the last decade. Therefore the credit for the success goes to us."

I don't see even a politician trying to make that fly.Why do you feel to mischaracterize almost every argument people make? I've given credit to the LCR for this. Repeatedly. Yet you insist on making up something I never said. It's incredibly frustrating. I never said LCR don't deserve credit, just that giving credit to JUST LCR is inane. And expanding that credit to the entire Republican party is, likewise, inane.

Yeah, like trying to win. Unlike the previous efforts.You seriously believe the ACLU (which by the way won the Witt case in the 9th circuit, which was a huge part of the reason the LCR won in their case), the Serviceman's Legal Defense Fund, the Human Rights Council, and the myriad of other "liberal" organizations that have fought DADT since it's inception all wanted to lose? Damn, after winning that Witt case, the case in Washington, the case involving DOMA, same sex marriage cases, and the Prop 8 case, they really, really suck at losing on purpose.

The idea that the LCR won because they wanted to win, and the other groups lost because they wanted to lose takes a ocean of stupid to believe. While you've made some seriously flawed points in this thread, the sheer amount of stupid required to believe that dwarfs them all.

Bricker
10-27-2010, 09:10 PM
I'm no longer, but I bet a time or two when a law was declared unconstitutional and the president accepted it.

Why does he have to do this? Why do you guys keep saying he does without saying why or providing a cite?

Bricker? Somebody?

One of my favorite moments in the movie "A Few Good Men," occurs during a re-direct examination of a Marine. As you might remember, in the story two Marines are being tried for administering a "Code Red," an unofficial beating, to a fellow Marine who dies as a result. After another Marine testifies that Code Reds were authorized, the prosecutor hands the Marine a copy of the General Orders for the base and asks him where Code Reds are listed. When the witness says they're not there, the prosecutor feigns surprise and hands him the Marine Guidebook and says, "Surely they'll be listed here, then." Again the witness admits that Code Reds aren't documented in that book either. The prosecutor desists, confident he's shown that Code Reds don't exist.

The defense lawyer stands and hands the witness the same books. "Please show me where in those books the mess hall is," he asks. The witness replies that the mess hall's location isn't in them either. "How could you eat, then," asks defense counsel, "without knowing where the mess hall was?"

"I guess," said the witness, "when chow time came I just followed everyone else."

The President's duty is to faithfully execute the laws. (Art II Sec 3) An Act of Congress is presumed constitutional. When a law is challenged, it's his job, through the Justice Department, to defend it, even through the appeals process. If this were not so, then the will of a unanimous Congress could be flouted by a single judge. There is no law requiring the President to defend laws, I grant you, but the general division of roles in our tripartite system of government demands it, and even though there's no explicit law requiring him to act, his duty exists because of our system, just like the guy who finds the mess hall by the system, not the entry in the Marine Guidebook.

Richard Parker
10-27-2010, 09:11 PM
Ok, then let me translate your unreasonable post into a reasonable one, and then respond to it.

Well, I suppose you could put that aside if that was what I said. Unfortunately for you, it's not what I said you dishonest turd. The law was overturned. It was declared unconstitutional. It was no longer law. The President swears to uphold the Constitution. I could see why you would want to lie and put aside the actual argument seeing as responding to it would be a losing proposition.

While I recognize that the President must enforce laws generally, the President does not have an obligation to defend laws declared unconstitutional by a district court judge.

If a chief executive decides to only defend the laws he likes from district court decisions, then he eviscerates our whole system of courts which rely on an appellate process up to the Supreme Court. In other words, laws he likes would get the full due process, but laws he doesn't would not. That kind of political bias in the enforcement of constitutional law is a bad thing.

That said, I think a good middle ground would have been to appeal but not seek a stay. Which is why I wasn't really pressing the point.

So you are saying the LCR lost there case? You are saying the ACLU and others had already gotten DADT overturned before the LCR brought their case?
Because if you are saying I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm wrong, that's what you're arguing. You're arguing that? You are that stupid?

My point was that LCR won where the ACLU had not. On that point, I am correct.

Well, you're half-right. LCR got their injunction first, but the ACLU had actually won a district court case finding the application of DADT unconstitutional before that happened. Which is neither here nor there, since the larger point is that LCR didn't do anything substantially different from any of the "liberal" advocacy groups.

Really? You have a cite comparing the transcripts of arguments from both cases and finding them identical? Let's see it.

...actually, this was pretty reasonable put the first time

The constitutional argument isn't complicated. If you really don't believe me, I can download the pdf versions of the briefs from PACER and compare them side-by-side for you, but that would be a lot of work unless you seriously doubt the point that the ACLU was making substantially the same arguments in the WA case and others.

Ohhhh, I understand now. Obama actually overturned the case. He did the Jedi mind trick on that conservative judge so she'd accept the arguments made by the LCRs (who according to you plagiarized them from the ACLU.)
Oh, and while other people have claimed figuratively that Obama walks on water this is the first time I've heard somebody argue seriously that he has the power of mind control which works from his ability to harness and change the political climate at will.

That's quite a superpower. [And on and on on this theme]

I don't think Obama had anything to do with the Judge accepting LCR's argument

I wasn't really saying he did. My point was that LCR didn't do anything differently from what the liberal groups you so deride did. What changed is the country, for the most part. And it matters to district judges that the top brass was recognizing the injustice of DADT.

Also, the Judge was a Clinton appointee and Berkeley law grad.


Right, because Obama wanted them to win. Except when he did they overturned it? Makes perfect sense.

If the DOJ could have done more to win the case, why would they then move for a stay?

Because they must meet their institutional obligations, and nothing more. Their obligation is to defend the statute on its terms, not to find additional evidence to support it, or do anything more than offer the arguments of its legislative supporters.

I'll just stop here. Your arguments are so bad, they're not even amusing anymore. It's pathetic the lengths you'll go to to somehow pretend a Republican group didn't do this and a Democratic President didn't undo it.

I won't address the other points you make because I think your larger theme, that Republicans shouldn't get credit, is incorrect.

That wasn't my point. Obviously some individual Republicans won a great victory in CA, and Obama's DOJ stayed the decision. I'm not arguing otherwise. What I was trying to correct was your misapprehension that ACLU, GLAD, etc. were just sitting on their thumbs and that LCR came along and got shit done.

Richard Parker
10-27-2010, 09:26 PM
Relevant comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/27/obamas-interview-with-progressive-bloggers_n_775112.html) from the President today:

QUESTION: And one of the things I'd like to ask you -- and I think it's a simple yes or no question too -- is do you think that "don't ask, don't tell" is unconstitutional?

THE PRESIDENT: It's not a simple yes or no question, because I'm not sitting on the Supreme Court. And I've got to be careful, as President of the United States, to make sure that when I'm making pronouncements about laws that Congress passed I don't do so just off the top of my head.

I think that -- but here's what I can say. I think "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong. I think it doesn't serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I've gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned -- something that's unprecedented.

And so my hope and expectation is, is that we get this law passed. It is not just harmful to the brave men and women who are serving, and in some cases have been discharged unjustly, but it doesn't serve our interests -- and I speak as Commander-in-Chief on that issue.

Let me go to the larger issue, though, Joe, about disillusionment and disappointment. I guess my attitude is that we have been as vocal, as supportive of the LGBT community as any President in history. I've appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any President in history. We have moved forward on a whole range of issues that were directly under my control, including, for example, hospital visitation.

On "don't ask, don't tell," I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue.

And so, I'll be honest with you, I don't think that the disillusionment is justified.

Now, I say that as somebody who appreciates that the LGBT community very legitimately feels these issues in very personal terms. So it's not my place to counsel patience. One of my favorite pieces of literature is "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and Dr. King had to battle people counseling patience and time. And he rightly said that time is neutral. And things don't automatically get better unless people push to try to get things better.

So I don't begrudge the LGBT community pushing, but the flip side of it is that this notion somehow that this administration has been a source of disappointment to the LGBT community, as opposed to a stalwart ally of the LGBT community, I think is wrong.

. . .

THE PRESIDENT: I was very deliberate in working with the Pentagon so that I've got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs being very clear about the need to end this policy. That is part of a strategy that I have been pursuing since I came into office. And my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year.

Now, as usual, I need 60 votes. So I think that, Joe, the folks that you need to be having a really good conversation with -- and I had that conversation with them directly yesterday, but you may have more influence than I do -- is making sure that all those Log Cabin Republicans who helped to finance this lawsuit and who feel about this issue so passionately are working the handful of Republicans that we need to get this thing done.

You're financing a very successful, very effective legal strategy, and yet the only really thing you need to do is make sure that we get two to five Republican votes in the Senate.

And I said directly to the Log Cabin Republican who was here yesterday, I said, that can't be that hard. Get me those votes.

Because what I do anticipate is that John McCain and maybe some others will filibuster this issue, and we're going to have to have a cloture vote. If we can get through that cloture vote, this is done.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 09:33 PM
What we're saying is that the LCR is hardly the toast of the Republican party.

They are. To me. This week. (Good job, guys.)

You're trying to do some kind of jujitsu thing where you take the Democrats' missteps on gay rights issues and try to knock them down and replace them with the Republican party, but it won't work because you've got a HUGE counterweight to overcome: the Republican Party's very public and very extreme homophobia fueled by the religious fanaticism that the party has been cultivating and exploiting for votes for decades.

Well. Maybe. You could be right. What I think though is something like this is going on: There's been some study about racial bias based on political affiliation. It turns out that Republicans tend to identify or admit or claim racial bias a lot more than Democrats, who tend not to.

In testing, this hold up... a little bit. When they actually test the biases of Republicans versus Democrats what they find is that the Republicans are every bit as biased as they say, and that the Democrats are nearly as biased as the Republicans. The claimed difference is great. The observed difference is small.

People can and do lie about there racial bias:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html

http://www.discriminations.us/2006/01/are_republicans_more_racist_th.html

I find the interesting. I think it applies also to the issue of homosexuality. There is not a big difference in the observed bias of Republicans compared to their claimed bias. They, on average, are about as bad as they say they are.

The Democrats seem to be almost as bad as the Republicans, though they claim they are much better. In fact, it seems that much of their political capitol with minorities is based on this claim that there is a vast difference in their behavior versus the Republicans. Observationally, it doesn't seem to be true. Most of the really shitty things that have been done to homosexuals over the last two decades have enjoyed bipartisan support. There was not a Presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat who did not say they were against gay marriage in the last campaign. DOMA enjoyed bipartisan support. Clinton did DADT. Obama put it back after it was declared unconstitutional. The Democrats seem to let the Republicans take the lead when it comes to discriminating against gay. They seem to hemm and haw enough at first to show some deniability. But when push comes to shove they seem to jump right into the gay bashing party readily enough. It kind of reminds me of "In Cold Blood." The one killer always needed to pretend he was being the reasonable one to assuage his conscience before he committed murder.

I don't find that particularly admirable.

I don't agree with discrimination or gay-bashing, but I do respect integrity. There's a line in Shakespeare "Much ado about nothing" Don John says " "I cannot be said to be a flattering honest man, it must not be denied but I am a plain-dealing villain."

There's something to that that rings true. Flattery makes others call you honest. I think a lot of the high reputation that the Democrats currently hold is based on their flattery of minorities.


I have to thank you for one thing, Scylla. If this thread has done anything, it's helped me to make a firm decision to go out and vote enthusiastically for Democrats, despite their foot-dragging on my issues. You've reminded me just how BAD the Republicans are for GLBT folk by trying to convince me that the Democrats are worse (which is, on its face, an absolutely absurd argument).

Well, I'm glad I can take credit for energizing your desire to rock the vote. Your about the fifth person though who has used the "Democrats being worse is absurd" assertion against my argument. I find that interesting. Sincerely interesting. Dismissing an argument as absurd is a fallacy.

In my job, I spend a lot of time searching for those things that everybody is absolutely sure are true, and then betting against them. I've made a lot of money over the years that way.

You know why? The answer is different than you'd guess.

It's not that the things everybody believes in aren't true. They usually are. The fact that everybody believes in something makes people rely on it, and not question it, and they push it to extremes, and because they have believed something is a certain way they ignore the signs that it is changing and that what they believe may soon no longer be so.

For example, if I build you a deck and tell you to be careful with ho much weight you put on it, chances are you'll be careful. You'll check the deck and monitor it, and watch for signs of failure. Usually, this caution will prevent disaster.

However, if I build you a deck and tell you that this is the strongest deck ever and can hold anything you care to put on it, and you believe it... than you might end up with a problem. You might never check it for signs of failure. You might not care if tons of people and equipment sit on it. You might not might maintain it properly because you think it is so strong.

And that is how it usually happens. That's the typical deck failure story. It happens all the time. Decks fail for those who are sure there deck is strong and do not question its integrity.

I think the Democratic platform is not nearly as strong in this regard as you, or others in this thread seem to believe.

Personally, I prefer a deck that I know is dangerous to one that I think is safe. YMMV.

At this point, I can't even believe that you believe what you're posting, if only because I know you're not insane.

Certified by Jayjay as "not insane." I may use that as a sig.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 09:36 PM
THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to tip my hand now. But there is a strategy.

Q Okay.

THE PRESIDENT: And, look, as I said --

Q Can we call it a secret plan? (Laughter.)


He didn't deserve that, but it was funny. And who is "Joe"?

jayjay
10-27-2010, 09:40 PM
Personally, I prefer a deck that I know is dangerous to one that I think is safe. YMMV.

I prefer to use a contractor who will actually build me that deck, even if it's imperfect and comes in over budget and over time, instead of a contractor whose advertisements consistently call decks evil and dirty and against nature and absolutely refuse to build one.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 09:44 PM
I prefer to use a contractor who will actually build me that deck.

It's not the contractor or the deck that is usually the cause for the failure.

It's the confidence that the deck won't fail that is usually to blame.




I'm going to respond up to Richard Parker's last post, and then stop for the evening. Might be a day or two before I can come back.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 09:48 PM
We wait wth bated breath.

You know, I wonder how much of this approach is a result of him being a constitutional law nerd?

Scylla
10-27-2010, 09:55 PM
True. If you're interested, here's more: "Politics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires.

I don't want to make an argument from ignorance her, but I have no idea why an "as applied case" is inferior to a facial challenge and must therefore be appealed. I have no idea whether you have just made a really great argument or one that a knowledgeable person would laugh at.

"Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point."

You are producing these two arguments as quotes. I genuinely assume you accidentally failed to show the cite you got them from. May I ask for it?

Hamlet
10-27-2010, 10:01 PM
IYou are producing these two arguments as quotes. I genuinely assume you accidentally failed to show the cite you got them from. May I ask for it?Thanks for catching that.

They're from Jason Mazzone, a law prof at Brooklyn Law School. The article is here (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/09/dadt-wait-it-out.html) on one of the law blogs I check out in my law geekness.

Miller
10-27-2010, 10:01 PM
So sure, he doesn’t say that he feels his horse should be put first, but he clearly says that if his horse is not advanced, he assumes it means that gays are not important enough to have their concerns addressed.

Simply, if they are kept on par with others, they are in fact not important enough. What else could that imply but that to be given the importance they are due, they have to be other than on par (e.g. put first)? I am honestly interested in learning how I am misunderstanding this.

I think you missed the first half of my analogy, which specified that the three horses are not being kept on par with each other: one horse is visibly mistreated by the driver. Does that clear things up at all?

Leaper
10-27-2010, 10:02 PM
Just to be clear, Scylla: if you could advise homosexual voters who are specifically concerned about maintaining and gaining rights as citizens, would you advise them to vote Republican? Why or why not? Are you arguing in this thread that having Republicans in national power is better for gay rights in general than having Democrats in the same positions? Either way, why?

Also, what do you think the average Republican voter thinks about gay people? The average high-ranking Republican politico? The most well-respected pundits, professional or otherwise? How do you think their attitudes are reflected in their actions?

Scylla
10-27-2010, 10:03 PM
Bricker:

That makes good sense, and I understand what you said. I do find though in the concept upon which your argument is built, namely that the President has roughly the same degree of autonomy and choice as a Marine Corps Private.

My understanding of the military chain of command is that they higher you go, the more autonomy and responsibility you go.

Or, to follow through on your analogy, Jack Nicholson's character... The Col, he didn't eat at the mess hall, did he. He had his own special tent where he wanted it "100 yards away from people who were trying to kill him." He didn't need to follow anybody to know where to eat. He decided where to eat.

So, your example, does not hold even within its own context. If the Col. doesn't need to follow everybody to the mess surely the Commander in chief does not.

Ludovic
10-27-2010, 10:06 PM
Go ahead, don't let me stop you from providing evidence of the massive homophobia amongst liberals, massively outweighing that of the admitted gay-haters amongst the conservatives.

Except you won't find any. Because acceptance is a defining characteristic of a liberal. It is almost mathematically certain that liberals are much more tolerant of homosexuality than conservatives.

The only way liberals in general could tend to hate gays is if those that are liberal in other social ways, and financially, tend to be raving homophobes. Because the very fact of LBGT-friendliness is a point in the "liberal" column of a person. They'd have to be pretty liberal in other ways in order to counteract a homophobic tendency and still remain a liberal.

Just like the Log Cabin Republicans would pretty much have to be Gold Bugs or shoot-the-aliens-on-sighters in order for me not to automatically consider them moderate Republicans.

Miller
10-27-2010, 10:13 PM
The President's duty is to faithfully execute the laws. (Art II Sec 3) An Act of Congress is presumed constitutional. When a law is challenged, it's his job, through the Justice Department, to defend it, even through the appeals process. If this were not so, then the will of a unanimous Congress could be flouted by a single judge. There is no law requiring the President to defend laws, I grant you, but the general division of roles in our tripartite system of government demands it, and even though there's no explicit law requiring him to act, his duty exists because of our system, just like the guy who finds the mess hall by the system, not the entry in the Marine Guidebook.

This is a fine and just position to take, and I don't have any quarrel with it on its own merits. But I have to ask, does Obama share it? If Obama has been vigilant in always challenging rulings that go against the state, if he has been steadfast in enforcing even laws he finds odious, then my criticism of him is misplaced. On the other hand, if he picks and chooses which laws to enforce, and which laws to let slide, if he sometimes looks the other way when a lower court strikes down a federal law, then I think we can deduce something of his character for his decision to act so swiftly when DADT was struck down.

Now, I admit, I don't have any idea of his history when it comes to challenging legal decisions that go against the state. But I do seem to recall that not too long ago, he stated that he would not be enforcing federal drug laws against medical marijuana users. If he can look the other way when it comes to laws that are currently on the books, I have to wonder what prevented him from doing the same with DADT.

Miller
10-27-2010, 10:32 PM
Now, just imagine that you were somebody of importance, some political heavy-hitter for the gay rights cause, and you said that in public. How long do you think it would be before Turdblossom had that plastered over every Spanish language site he could find?

"See? See? The gays will sell you out in a heartbeat to advance their agenda!" And he wouldn't even have to twist your words to fit, he'd just be flat out quoting you! Christ Jesus, but you're stupid!

Look, I answered the question you posed. You gave me a false dilemma, and I was dumb enough to roll with your hypothetical. Given an either-or choice between advancing hispanic rights, and advancing gay rights, I picked gay rights. What I find interesting is that, if I had gone the other way, if I had said I would sell out the gays to help the Latinos, you would not be berating me as some sort of quisling to the Republicans. I find that discrepency endlessly fascinating.

And again, what's your plan? Are you going to overcome our enemies with the sheer weight of your numbers? Not likely. Now, I got a plan, and it bites. Its full of compromises, and deal making, and going along to get along, and I don't much like it. I'd much rather sweep aside our enemies in a glorious electoral massacre! I'd also like a pony, and Rachel Maddow. I might get the pony.

And you still continue to fundamentally not understand the crux of the complaints here. The problem is not that we object to compromise. The problem is not that we don't want to make any deals. The problem is that the people we keep compromising and deal-making with consistently fail to honor their side of the bargain.

Its a painful plan, a slow plan. You got a better one, lets see it. Bring it, tough guy, show us what you got. But so far when that question is posed you want to change the subject to what an asshole I am. OK, I'm an asshole, so are you, what's your fucking plan!

I don't have a plan. Gays are in a no-win situation, politically. Our options are to stick with mealy-mouthed, backstabbing, hypocritical sonsofbitches like yourself. Or switch to the Republicans. And as loathsome as you may be, you're still a better bet than the GOP. So, my plan right now is to stick with the status quo. I'll keep voting Democrat, on the offhand chance that sooner or later, I'll end up pulling the lever for someone who really means what he says. And I'll keep being utterly unsurprised when they double back on their word, just like all their predecessors.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 10:37 PM
Richard Parker:



"Unreasonable," doesn't appear to be the right word for your complaint with my post. Your translation (which pleasantly seems to be a good faith restatement,) seems to contain my reasoning, unchanged. What you seem to have done is removed the wit, the bite, the sarcasm from my points, not the reason. Therefore, your complaint seems more like I was being an asshole than that I was being unreasonable. I so concede. I responded thusly because I felt you were demonstrating assholery in your previous post.

Looks like it's time to move part that (although I'm thinking it might be fun to translate you're replies into Assholese, and then so respond, but we always have Hentor for that, so no.)

[quote]If a chief executive decides to only defend the laws he likes from district court decisions, then he eviscerates our whole system of courts which rely on an appellate process up to the Supreme Court. In other words, laws he likes would get the full due process, but laws he doesn't would not. That kind of political bias in the enforcement of constitutional law is a bad thing.

That said, I think a good middle ground would have been to appeal but not seek a stay. Which is why I wasn't really pressing the point.

Ok. If the first part is a reasonable statement of the President's position and obligation than the course you suggest of simply appealing without a stay seems to be the natural and appropriate response, and a reasonable one. He didn't do that though. Since he didn't, it's hard to assert that was his motivation. Being President, I don't think he's going to be able to say "I never thought of that." Clearly, if you can come up with that idea, either he or one of his advisors could. Logically, it makes sense that they thought of it, and then decided against it. They decided to go for the stay. Why? Why would you do that? The most charitable possible explanation that I can think of is that a change now would cause unfavorable fallout before the election. Waiting a month will be a disapoint for some, but will hardly matter in the end. Therefore, throwing gays under the bus for a month or two isn't really all that terrible.

Maybe that's it. I don't think so, though. I don't think he really wants it repealled. Jumping ahead to your quote from the Prez from today, it reads to me like he is setting up his excuses. He keeps saying he needs the 60 votes. When he doesn't get them he's built in a plausible excuse for why the law is still standing.

Why would he want the law to still stand? I think he thinks that repealing it completely would cause him to much fallout and he's already dealing with enough.

Well, you're half-right. LCR got their injunction first, but the ACLU had actually won a district court case finding the application of DADT unconstitutional before that happened. Which is neither here nor there, since the larger point is that LCR didn't do anything substantially different from any of the "liberal" advocacy groups

Except win the injunction. All pro football teams throw, pass, run, block and kick. None of them do anything substantially different. Some win though. It seems odd though that the pee-wee league of of the LCR could succeed where so many other more formidable entities have failed.

The constitutional argument isn't complicated. If you really don't believe me, I can download the pdf versions of the briefs from PACER and compare them side-by-side for you, but that would be a lot of work unless you seriously doubt the point that the ACLU was making substantially the same arguments in the WA case and others.

As a tangent it's not particularly important. How about I take your word for it now, and if it turns out the LCR used some brand new magical mumbo jumbo that nobody else used then I rub your nose in it later?

I wasn't really saying he did. My point was that LCR didn't do anything differently from what the liberal groups you so deride did. What changed is the country, for the most part. And it matters to district judges that the top brass was recognizing the injustice of DADT.

Yeah, but they won an injunction, and the other guys didn't. Nothing succeeds like success. The LCR did it well where other more notables failed. (We seem at an impasse on this point. I'm not impressed with your "they did the same thing" argument and you're not impressed with my "they won, therefore they did it better" reply.)

Also, the Judge was a Clinton appointee and Berkeley law grad.

Foxnews said the judge was conservative. Hmmm. Maybe they meant the judge was conservative the way some posters say that Obama is further to the right than Reagan.

Because they must meet their institutional obligations, and nothing more. Their obligation is to defend the statute on its terms, not to find additional evidence to support it, or do anything more than offer the arguments of its legislative supporters.

You've previously argued that they could have just appealed.

That wasn't my point. Obviously some individual Republicans won a great victory in CA, and Obama's DOJ stayed the decision. I'm not arguing otherwise. What I was trying to correct was your misapprehension that ACLU, GLAD, etc. were just sitting on their thumbs and that LCR came along and got shit done.

The LCR did get the shit done, regardless of what those other guys were doing. I think that's what counts. You've done a good showing that the the LCRs achievement is built upon the work of other, largely liberally groups, which I recognize.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 10:49 PM
Just to be clear, Scylla: if you could advise homosexual voters who are specifically concerned about maintaining and gaining rights as citizens, would you advise them to vote Republican? Why or why not?

No. I would advise them not to simply vote Democratic "because everybody knows the Democrats are friendlier to gays." I think it's counterproductive. I think the individual candidates need to earn the votes. You shouldn't vote for somebody because you are gay and they are democrat. You shouldn't vote against somebody because you are gay and they are Republican.

I think that sort of mindset is something politicians count on, and ultimately it sets you up be let down.

I'm pretty conservative, and I voted for Obama. I hated the healthcare thing. I was afraid of him economically and from a foreign policy standpoint, but I agreed with him socially. Oddly, the only thing that hit my expectations was the healthcare. Other than that he's George Bush without the speech impediment. He's running the war exactly the way Bush did, same for the economy, and socially he hasn't actually done anything.


Are you arguing in this thread that having Republicans in national power is better for gay rights in general than having Democrats in the same positions? Either way, why?

No.

Also, what do you think the average Republican voter thinks about gay people?

The ones I know don't really care all that much


The average high-ranking Republican politico? The most well-respected pundits, professional or otherwise? How do you think their attitudes are reflected in their actions?

I don't know what they think. Overall, I think there actions on the issue of gay rights is reprehensible, which is pretty much what I think about the Democrats. They are a little less reprehensible on the actions, a little more on the hypocrisy.

Since you are kind of asking what advice I'd offer to a gay voter (surprisingly, there aren't a lot of gay voters asking me what they should do. Go figure.) What I'd say is:

Vote for people not parties.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 10:52 PM
Thanks for catching that.

They're from Jason Mazzone, a law prof at Brooklyn Law School. The article is here (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/09/dadt-wait-it-out.html) on one of the law blogs I check out in my law geekness.

Thanks. That looks steep to me. Let me get back to you.

crowmanyclouds
10-27-2010, 11:03 PM
... Why would he want the law to still stand? I think he thinks that repealing it completely would cause him to much fallout ...And just who would the overwhelming amount of that fallout be coming from? :rolleyes:

CMC fnord!

Scylla
10-27-2010, 11:07 PM
I don't have a plan. Gays are in a no-win situation, politically. Our options are to stick with mealy-mouthed, backstabbing, hypocritical sonsofbitches like yourself. Or switch to the Republicans. And as loathsome as you may be, you're still a better bet than the GOP. So, my plan right now is to stick with the status quo. I'll keep voting Democrat, on the offhand chance that sooner or later, I'll end up pulling the lever for someone who really means what he says. And I'll keep being utterly unsurprised when they double back on their word, just like all their predecessors.

Here's my plan. Someday soon, a real bible thumper with serious religious and conservative cred is going to figure out that he can get himself in the history books, and steal all the Liberal thunder by saying something like:

"I think gay sex is wrong. My religion tells me so. This country though was founded by our ancestors who fled because they were not able to practice there religion freely. Those same forefathers wisely put freedom first. We are not a country founded on religion, but one founded on freedom. I believe our forefathers chose wisely and with divine inspiration. God gave us the right to chose our individual courses, right or wrong. We have no right to take away from another what God has given us. A wise man once said "I despise what you say, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it." Similarly, it is the shame of this country that we deny basic rights to people simply because we abhor how they exercise them.

I believe we are acting against God's will by denying these rights to citizens, and we are denying our heritage and the cornerstone of strength of our country which is freedom.

Therefore, I believe that is the duty of every American to recognize the right of homosexuals to enjoy the same legal privileges of marriage as heterosexuals, and also that they have the same responsibility and right to fight and die for the freedoms this country stands for as every other citizen."

Scylla
10-27-2010, 11:10 PM
And just who would the overwhelming amount of that fallout be coming from? :rolleyes:

CMC fnord!

Everybody religious ain't on the right.

Some minorities that tend to vote Democratic don't necessarily like gay people. I'm thinking Latinos, a large subset of blacks.
:rolleyes: back at ya.

Miller
10-27-2010, 11:18 PM
That's... not really a plan.

Scylla
10-27-2010, 11:30 PM
That's... not really a plan.

Sure it is. That's my plan for making gay rights palatable to religious christian Republican voters. For the record, those are not my personal sentiments. I have no religious objection to homosexuality.

Ok, not a plan. An idea.

A bill that's beneficial to big business can get forced through if a liberal democrat is onboard. Gay rights needs somebody on board with religious right cred.

The right politician might see the chance to thread the needle, and try to steal the civil rights thunder from the liberals without ostracizing the social conservatives by expressing such a sentiment.

Ok, not a plan. Wishful thinking.

Good night.

elucidator
10-27-2010, 11:45 PM
Will ACORN ensure that the monkeys that fly out of my ass can register to vote?

elucidator
10-28-2010, 12:13 AM
...What I find interesting is that, if I had gone the other way, if I had said I would sell out the gays to help the Latinos, you would not be berating me as some sort of quisling to the Republicans. I find that discrepency endlessly fascinating.....

That is often the case with such delusions, the victim finds them fascinating. Its hard to change the mind of someone who is sure of something that just isn't so.

The point is the leader of a coalition like this, whether its you, me, or Obama would be taking an enormous risk by favoring, or even seeming to favor, one stakeholder over another. The only possible exception: if everyone agrees that the plight of the Elbonians is so dire, so immediate, so extreme...that all other stakeholders agree to allow the collective effort to be shifted in their favor. And sometimes humans do behave like that, God bless us every one. But not often, not often enough so you can count on it.

In every coalition, there are separatists. There are figures who counsel their own group that they are being misused, they are under-appreciated, they would be better off breaking free of the coalition and standing on their own.

In the cold light of realpolitik, this is utterly impractical for the gay equality movement.

Keep in mind, the coalition is not the Democratic Party, We do our best to influence that party on our befalf, with varying degree of success. And so it goes.

But if your cause is worth the pain and humiliation of coalition politics, then you accept that as fact and behave accordingly. And if you are Elbonian, and know in your heart of hearts that, yes, indeed, you put your cause above the others without a moment's hesitation.....you would be wise to keep that to yourself. Or, failing that, you aren't really committed, are you?

Its like ham and eggs, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

And its a thing you see in the various progressive movements: we piss and moan, bitch and perform, and trudge our weary, hopeless way to eventual victory.

waterj2
10-28-2010, 12:32 AM
Everybody religious ain't on the right.

Some minorities that tend to vote Democratic don't necessarily like gay people. I'm thinking Latinos, a large subset of blacks.
:rolleyes: back at ya.I really think black and hispanic animosity towards gays is overstated. Washington, DC is majority black and its City Council legalized same-sex marriage, and I don't recall the voters rising up against them. Yeah, it might not have passed in a referendum, but a lot of politicians representing heavily black constituencies seem to be fully in favor of gay rights. As for hispanics, the polls I've seen show greater support for same-sex marriage among hispanic Catholics than among non-hispanic white Catholics, by a tiny amount. Among mainline Protestants, the reverse is true, and the disparity is actually pretty huge, though.

Incidentally, I think variations on the quote you imagine a hypothetical bible-thumper saying have been used by Catholic Democrats (especially at the local level). If there's one thing I love about the Catholic Church, it's its irrelevance to most Catholics on political issues. I'd love to see prominent Republicans have the courage that the Dems did when they "lost the South for 50 years" and be willing to kiss the evangelical vote goodbye. But, looking at this year's crop of Republican candidates, that's not the direction the party is moving.

Diogenes the Cynic
10-28-2010, 12:33 AM
MLK was often accused by more impatient types as being a gradualist and a compromiser too.

As President Obama said on The Daily Show Tonight, "Yes we can, but..."

elucidator
10-28-2010, 12:47 AM
Google already has a page full of "Yes, we can, but...".

The Fox slime will have a field day.

Miller
10-28-2010, 12:52 AM
The point is the leader of a coalition like this, whether its you, me, or Obama would be taking an enormous risk by favoring, or even seeming to favor, one stakeholder over another.

I'm not asking to be favored over anyone else. I'm asking that Democratic politicians honor their word when they say they'll fight for our rights. You're the one who insists on casting this as some sort of competition between different factions of the party. Like there's only so much equality to go around, and if someone gets more, it requires someone else get less. Of course, equality doesn't work like that. If it did, it wouldn't be equality.

In every coalition, there are separatists. There are figures who counsel their own group that they are being misused, they are under-appreciated, they would be better off breaking free of the coalition and standing on their own.

In the cold light of realpolitik, this is utterly impractical for the gay equality movement.

Which is why I have said, repeatedly, including in the post to which you are responding, that I'm not going to break from the Democratic party, that there are no better options out there, and that for better or worse, that's the horse our wagon is hitched to for the forseeable future. But if we don't have any more honorable allies to turn to, at the very least, we can hold the ones we do have to the fire for their failures to honor their ends of their bargains, in the hopes that at some point, we might waken some kernal of shame in them and they'll finally start to do right by us.

Keep in mind, the coalition is not the Democratic Party, We do our best to influence that party on our befalf, with varying degree of success. And so it goes.

I'm not entirely clear why you think I need to be reminded of this, given that in every single one of my posts in this thread, I have specified that it's the actions of the Democratic party that I'm taking issue with.

Its like ham and eggs, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed.

You know, if someone came to me and said, "You can have total and complete equality for gays across all levels of society, but you'll have to spend the rest of your life listening to elucidator's endlessly repetitive, bullshit folksy homilies," not only would I turn him down, I'd run right out and sign up for Rick Santorum's re-election campaign.

I mean, I'm all in favor of gay rights, but there are limits.

elucidator
10-28-2010, 01:37 AM
Go for it. Set the timer so you will know exactly how long before anybody gives a rats.

You and me, were done now, right? All that belligerence and bile, and turns out you didn't have much to say, just real nasty about saying it.

Kumbaya, shit for brains.

Richard Parker
10-28-2010, 06:52 AM
"Unreasonable," doesn't appear to be the right word for your complaint with my post. Your translation (which pleasantly seems to be a good faith restatement,) seems to contain my reasoning, unchanged. What you seem to have done is removed the wit, the bite, the sarcasm from my points, not the reason.

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish hyperbole and sarcasm from mischaracterization. What I thought was unreasonable was your characterization of my arguments.


Ok. If the first part is a reasonable statement of the President's position and obligation than the course you suggest of simply appealing without a stay seems to be the natural and appropriate response, and a reasonable one. He didn't do that though. Since he didn't, it's hard to assert that was his motivation.

It is the sort of thing about which reasonable people disagree. Failing to enter a stay might mean that lots of servicemembers come out, or are hired as openly gay; what to do then if the district court is reversed? I think Obama had a little more wiggle room than he used, but I don't think that is evidence of his malice.

I think the argument that he did it for politics is also just unlikely, even not knowing anything about Obama, because the vast majority of Americans support repeal. Repealing DADT would probably help Democrats in the mid-terms, given the enthusiasm gap.

Also note, whether he was obligated to appeal, and if so, seek a stay, is a separate question from what kind of defense the DOJ is obligated to put on. There too, there is wiggle room, but I think there the DOJ obviously chose the least they could do satisfy their obligation to defend the law.


Except win the injunction. All pro football teams throw, pass, run, block and kick. None of them do anything substantially different. Some win though. It seems odd though that the pee-wee league of of the LCR could succeed where so many other more formidable entities have failed.

It just isn't that odd. As you say, if you find out that LCR made some new argument (presumably relating to them not being wussy liberals), I'll eat crow. Then you'll have the beginnings of a point that they went where the ACLU refused or failed to go. But resting your point on the mere fact that they got a Judge to issue their requested relief first is like pointing to the first jackpot winner at the slot machines as evidence that granny there likes money more than the rest of the clientele. And, to complete the analogy to your argument, that granny's political party is therefore especially interested in money.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-28-2010, 06:59 AM
I think you missed the first half of my analogy, which specified that the three horses are not being kept on par with each other: one horse is visibly mistreated by the driver. Does that clear things up at all?No, I did catch that part. Since it was something that you specifically added to twist the point around, I chose not to follow you on that path. However, if I did, I would have had to argue strongly against that point, because it is completely self-centered, petulant bullshit. Do you really think that relative to other groups, homosexuals are the only ones who are not being treated equally, fairly and justly? “Yeah, these sure are halcyon days for everyone else, it’s only homosexuals that anyone has it out for!” That kind of myopic self-centeredness is precisely why I think you come across as implying that “If you don’t prefer us, you are against us.”

On the whole, Democrats have not been forceful advocates of gay rights. They’ve not been particularly forceful advocates against Mulsim bigotry either. Hell, they’ve hardly been forceful advocates for their own fiscal policies. Some Democrats are running campaign ads touting their record voting against Nancy Pelosi and Democratic positions. Jason Altmeyer is touting his efforts to use steel in constructing a US border fence. In this issue of Guts Magazine - “Hentor rates the Democrats: They’re pussies!”

If you think that the horse representing gay rights is the only one being neglected by Democrats, you’re crazy.

Hamlet
10-28-2010, 07:08 AM
Thanks. That looks steep to me. Let me get back to you.You don't even have to. I'm not sure I agree with Mazzone, I was simply offering it to try and make you understand that there is a certain level of nuance and detail, as expressed by Richard Parker and Bricker, to Obama's decision beyond your "Look!! He hates gays too!!" conclusion.

I'd much rather you get back to me about why you think liberal groups that have been challenging DADT for decades have been trying not to win, and it was because it was the LCR that DADT got decided. Or you could get back to me how, as furious as you get over DADT, you don't seem to give any import to the fact that repealling DADT passed the House because of Democrats and despite Republicans, and would have passed the Senate, but for Republican's voting not to overrule their own filibuster. Seems to me that that flies right in the face of your arguments that somehow the Republicans are better on DADT than Democrats.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-28-2010, 07:10 AM
It's not the contractor or the deck that is usually the cause for the failure.

It's the confidence that the deck won't fail that is usually to blame.I LOVE this post as a perfect reflection of conservative thinking. The actual plans, construction or structure don't have anything to do with a deck falling down. It's how confident you are about the deck itself.

Don't forget this classic line: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."

Clap harder if you believe! I do believe! I do believe!Looks like it's time to move part that (although I'm thinking it might be fun to translate you're replies into Assholese, and then so respond, but we always have Hentor for that, so no.)Why would I translate Richard Parker's quotes into Assholese? He's being very intelligent and thoughtful as he systematically schools you. I wouldn't want to mess with the process one bit. (I also wanted to quote you on this to highlight your (you're) typo. Doesn't that just always happen when you're being a douchebag?)

Hamlet
10-28-2010, 07:15 AM
But resting your point on the mere fact that they got a Judge to issue their requested relief first is like pointing to the first jackpot winner at the slot machines as evidence that granny there likes money more than the rest of the clientele. And, to complete the analogy to your argument, that granny's political party is therefore especially interested in money.It's an 86 page decision, so I didn't read the whole thing, but it seemed pretty clear that Judge Phillips' decision rested heavily on the Witt case. The Witt case is the one that the ACLU kinda sorta won in the 9th circuit when they asked DADT be overruled. The standard of review, as well as the test Judge Phillips applied, relied very heavily on the appellate ruling in the Witt case. So the ACLU files a case challenging DADT, they win, it gets appealled, they kinda win, but it gets sent back to the trial level. Before the judge issues his ruling in the trial level in Witt, Phillips issues hers, relying heavily on the Witt decision in the appellate court. And then the trial level on Witt finds the same thing.

Kudos to the LCR for challenging DADT and winning. But ignoring all the work that came before (and during) it and giving all the credit to the LCR is just silly. But still, it's not quite the level of stupid to believe the ACLU and others weren't really trying to win.

jayjay
10-28-2010, 07:49 AM
Well, it's typical Republican, though. Five hundred people carry cement blocks to the worksite and build a set of steps to reach the top of a wall, and the 501st person wanders in, climbs up those steps, and declares that HE made it to the top.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-28-2010, 08:01 AM
Well, it's typical Republican, though. Five hundred people carry cement blocks to the worksite and build a set of steps to reach the top of a wall, and the 501st person wanders in, climbs up those steps, and declares that HE made it to the top.Great point. To extend that a little bit, it's kind of like American conservatives declaring that you should keep your damn greedy liberal hands off my money that I made all by myself by using the educational system, roads and public transit, police and national defense, fire protection, health system, public sanitation, technology infrastructure, [and so on and so forth] that was provided to me by America. It's mine! I made it all on my own!

Scylla
10-28-2010, 08:21 AM
Great point. To extend that a little bit, it's kind of like American conservatives declaring that you should keep your damn greedy liberal hands off my money that I made all by myself by using the educational system, roads and public transit, police and national defense, fire protection, health system, public sanitation, technology infrastructure, [and so on and so forth] that was provided to me by America. It's mine! I made it all on my own!

I know, that's so funny. It's like when gay people are always complaining the government won't let them have sex with children, or black people just want to eat fried chicken, or those liberals who are trying to turn us all into commies.

What a great and original and accurate characterization you've provided Hentor.

Good job, dude.

Scylla
10-28-2010, 08:30 AM
Well, it's typical Republican, though. Five hundred people carry cement blocks to the worksite and build a set of steps to reach the top of a wall, and the 501st person wanders in, climbs up those steps, and declares that HE made it to the top.


Typical Rebublican where do you get that from? I honestly don't expect a comment like that from you.

Bricker
10-28-2010, 08:38 AM
Bricker:

That makes good sense, and I understand what you said. I do find though in the concept upon which your argument is built, namely that the President has roughly the same degree of autonomy and choice as a Marine Corps Private.

My understanding of the military chain of command is that they higher you go, the more autonomy and responsibility you go.

Or, to follow through on your analogy, Jack Nicholson's character... The Col, he didn't eat at the mess hall, did he. He had his own special tent where he wanted it "100 yards away from people who were trying to kill him." He didn't need to follow anybody to know where to eat. He decided where to eat.

So, your example, does not hold even within its own context. If the Col. doesn't need to follow everybody to the mess surely the Commander in chief does not.

Of course. But at the same time, "finding out where the mess hall is," is a pretty basic function, and "defending a provision of the UCMJ," a more complicated one. So it's not as much of a stretch as you might think: the Marine gets to eat at the mess hall; the President gets to defend the laws of the country.

It's true that the President has the power to do this -- refuse to defend a law. But when he uses his power this way, he undercuts the role that the executive branch is supposed to play in our system.

You've asked for a cite on that, but since there is not, and could not, be a law law compelling him to act, the proposition is not citable in that way. The citation is, instead, the point that both Richard Parker and I have made: it breaks the system.

And a moment's thought should make that clear: it takes 50%+1 member of each house of Congress, plus the President's assent, to create (or repeal) a law. That's the system. Laws thus made may be overturn by judicial review, but the full due process of that review is an initial finding at the trial court level and a review of that finding by an appellate group of judges. When the executive branch refuses to defend a law, the result is that a law made by majorities of the House and Senate is repealed by action of one judge and one President. Indeed, the matter is put into even starker contrast if we imagine a President vetoing a law, and Congress passing it over his veto. The President that then refused to defend that law in court is, with the connivance of one judge, exercising a super-veto which Congress cannot touch, even though Congress is *supposed* to be able to pass laws over his veto with their 2/3rds majority.

That should not be the system.

jayjay
10-28-2010, 09:02 AM
Typical Rebublican where do you get that from? I honestly don't expect a comment like that from you.

Scylla, I HATE the modern Republican Party, for very good reason. That doesn't mean I hate individual Republicans, en masse, but it does mean that I would cry no tears at all if the Republican Party as it currently exists were to wither away. I recognize the need for a counterweight to progressivism. But it's not as if the Democrats are pure progressive. I'd welcome a sane conservative party. I really would. But the Republicans, as a party, have leapt off the cliff.

The Tea Partiers are Republicans, regardless of how they claim they're registered. I don't see large numbers of them supporting Democrats, do you? And the Tea Partiers appear to be convinced that whatever success they achieved, they achieved alone, with no government help or support, even as they sit in their Medicare-purchased scooters and ride the government-purchased Metro to get to the government-permit-holding government-maintained national historic site for their anti-government rally. The Wall Street whiz kids who whine loudly in newspaper editorial pages about how hard they have it trying to get by on $500,000 a year are convinced that they received no benefits from the government, despite living in a society that, largely through the efforts of the government, has provided them with the means to acquire and maintain that kind of lifestyle, through government-provided and -subsidized education, government oversight of food safety, workplace safety, disease prevention and containment, the monetary system, and general law and order.

And that's not even getting in to the reason that I HATE Republicans in general...that's just the reason I hold the party in contempt. The reason I HATE Republicans in general (with exceptions for individuals who've proven themselves) is that they hate me. I'm a gay atheist liberal. The only way I could make myself more hated is if I weren't white.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-28-2010, 09:04 AM
I know, that's so funny. It's like when gay people are always complaining the government won't let them have sex with children, or black people just want to eat fried chicken, or those liberals who are trying to turn us all into commies.

What a great and original and accurate characterization you've provided Hentor.

Good job, dude.I'm certainly not the first person to point out your hypocrisy, but all I have to say to this point of yours is "Liberals hate gays."

Oh, and also, dumbass.

Scylla
10-28-2010, 09:19 AM
I'm certainly not the first person to point out your hypocrisy, but all I have to say to this point of yours is "Liberals hate gays."

Oh, and also, dumbass.

How was I being a hypocrite? I was congratulating you. If you think that behavior is bad why would you think my hypocrisy would absolve your behavior?

Hentor the Barbarian
10-28-2010, 09:33 AM
How was I being a hypocrite? I was congratulating you. If you think that behavior is bad why would you think my hypocrisy would absolve your behavior?

Key difference: to address the problem in my post, I need only add the word "many", whereas we are now on what page of you having your ass handed to you as you try to defend yours?

Scylla
10-28-2010, 09:47 AM
Why would that be a key difference? All I have to do is add "many" to my title as well.

Are you pre-rational, or something?

Scylla
10-28-2010, 01:36 PM
I understand your feelings. I would not expect you to feel warm and fuzzy to a party who's platform includes repressing you civil rights.

I do disagree with the conceptual impossibility you've proposed, which is that the government gives people things. The government doesn't give anybody anything. It can't give the people anything. It can just take.

I don't begrudge fair taxes or paying my share for the overall good of society. I think should as I enjoy it's benefits. I even think I should pay more than average since I have been fortunate to do better than average.

I do however resent the idea that Obama or others will look down on me as the enemy , or act as if I've done something wrong because I've been more successful than average.

I also really resent the concept that my success or anyone's for that matter is a product of the government, and therefore somebody else has a right to it.

It's not a product of the government, it's a product of my upbringing, discipline, hard work and the sacrifices I've made to become successful. And, it is product of the society that has created an environment where it is possible for me to be successful. However, it is not a product of he government. The government does nothing for me. It is a necessary evil of a benevolent society, by an evil that should be checked and minimized.

I resent the government's waste and corruption, and it's unnecessary intrusion into my life. I also resent it's unnecessary intrusion into your life. The government is involved in slot of things that it has no business being involved in. Your sexuality is high on that list. It has nothing to do with the proper functioning of government.

So, I'm surprised you think the government is this benevolent giver of things. From where I sit it looks to me like the government is taking away from you your right to participate as a full member of society.

The government is afull partner in my life in terms of what it takes. It doesn't give back much, and it never has to me. What it does give back I have paid dearly for and most often could have gotten elsewhere cheaper. A lot of what it tries to give me, I don't want, and a lot of the rest is of so poor quality I end buying my own elsewhere.

So, while you other argumens have merits, your concept of the right suck g off the tit of government doesn't ring especially true.

Bosstone
10-28-2010, 01:43 PM
Pure, unadulterated, steaming, stinky, us-versus-them bullshit.

jayjay
10-28-2010, 01:50 PM
The government is afull partner in my life in terms of what it takes. It doesn't give back much, and it never has to me. What it does give back I have paid dearly for and most often could have gotten elsewhere cheaper. A lot of what it tries to give me, I don't want, and a lot of the rest is of so poor quality I end buying my own elsewhere.

So, while you other argumens have merits, your concept of the right suck g off the tit of government doesn't ring especially true.

Did you attend a public school? Did you attend a private school that gets educational grants? Do you drive on public highways? Do you have to set up a watch rotation so you can climb up on your roof to guard your house against roving bands of criminals, or do you have police protection? Are you choking on smog thick enough to cut, or are your local factories and power plants regulated as to what they can emit? Do you work for a business that benefits from the government's prevention of fraud and encouragement of aboveboard business practices? Does your employer require you (and your daughter) to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, in hazardous and health-endangering conditions? Do you use relatively stable and guaranteed US dollars to buy things, or are you reduced to bartering?

Every. Single. Thing. That makes your life not a living hell of brutality, poverty and constant vigilance is something that the government carves out for you. Unless you live in a rough-hewn shack off the grid, out of any police/sheriff's department's jurisdiction, and don't use money at all, you've been given something by the government. Because I know that I, and most likely you as well, can't afford to provide all those things myself. Nobody can. Even Bill Gates can't liquidate enough money per annum to actually run his own military.

And it's not government-as-concept that's depriving me of my rights...six states and multiple foreign nations currently offer me marriage. It's the Right electing neanderthals and politicians who are more interested in being re-elected than in doing the right thing that are depriving me of my rights. And that includes Democrats when they side with Republicans on gay issues.

elucidator
10-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Well, it must be true. You look at just about any top of the line CEO, they'll tell you it was hard work, pluck, intelligence, and virtue that put them in that place. Back-stabbing office politics, greed, pride...none of those had anything to do with it. Clearly, God rewards the virtuous with money and power, because virtue is the clear path to money and power.

Why, look at J.P. Morgan, who made his first big money selling defective rifles to the US Army! Think of all the Confederate soldiers who's lives he saved when the gun blew up! And Henry Ford, all the money he spent educating America about the vast Jewish conspiracy! Why, the list goes on and on!

Miller
10-28-2010, 02:46 PM
No, I did catch that part. Since it was something that you specifically added to twist the point around, I chose not to follow you on that path.

Wait, how does saying, "I don't think that analogy works. Here's a different analogy that I think better reflects reality," count as twisting the point around? For that matter, how is quoting my post, cutting out the bit where I specifically said the original analogy didn't work, and then responding to me as if I were talking about the original analogy not twisting my words?

However, if I did, I would have had to argue strongly against that point, because it is completely self-centered, petulant bullshit. Do you really think that relative to other groups, homosexuals are the only ones who are not being treated equally, fairly and justly? “Yeah, these sure are halcyon days for everyone else, it’s only homosexuals that anyone has it out for!” That kind of myopic self-centeredness is precisely why I think you come across as implying that “If you don’t prefer us, you are against us.”

No, we're not the only ones being treated unfairly in society. But I haven't been talking about how we're treated in society at large, I'm talking about how reliable the Democratic party has been on following up on its promises to us.

On the whole, Democrats have not been forceful advocates of gay rights. They’ve not been particularly forceful advocates against Mulsim bigotry either. Hell, they’ve hardly been forceful advocates for their own fiscal policies. Some Democrats are running campaign ads touting their record voting against Nancy Pelosi and Democratic positions. Jason Altmeyer is touting his efforts to use steel in constructing a US border fence. In this issue of Guts Magazine - “Hentor rates the Democrats: They’re pussies!”

Have the Democrats ever tried to present themselves as the group that really cares about Muslim rights? I mean, it would be nice if they did, but my issue isn't really, "Democrats don't help groups that need help," so much as "Democrats don't help groups that they've promised to help in exchange for money and votes."

If you think that the horse representing gay rights is the only one being neglected by Democrats, you’re crazy.

I honestly don't know how reliable Democrats have been in helping other groups. My perception is that gays get shorted more often than other groups, but one is naturally more aware of slights to oneself than to others. Remember that this entire line of conversation that led to the horse analogy started from elucidator's assertion that the Democrats helping gays would necessarily have to come at the cost of helping other groups. In hindsight, I should never have entertained that premise to begin with, because the whole thing turned out to be a set-up for a lame-ass gotcha where Karl Rove uses me personally to destroy liberalism in America. Lesson learned on that score, but just to be clear, let me restate: I neither request nor require that the Democrats give more aid to gays than to any other disadvantaged group.

So, to sum up, Democrats are bastards because they lie to gays about supporting us. If they lie only to gays about supporting us, their bastardy runs especially deep. If they lie to everyone about supporting them, their bastardy runs especially broad. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Either way, the whole lot of them deserve to be staked out over anthills.

elucidator
10-28-2010, 03:49 PM
....started from elucidator's assertion that the Democrats helping gays would necessarily have to come at the cost of helping other groups. In hindsight, I should never have entertained that premise to begin with, because the whole thing turned out to be a set-up for a lame-ass gotcha...

Tell you what, leave me out and I'll stay out, because I am really tired of talking to you.

But, OK, is political power, political capital as they call it, is it infinite? If the Dems double the effort they make on behalf of latinos, does it limit the effort they can make on behalf of Elbonians? Or do they just reach into the Magic Goody Bag and pull out some more? Sadly, no.

OK, do you want them to make decisions based entirely on demographics, decide to support those groups with the most voters, and let the rest go? You wouldn't much like that, I'm guessing.

Do the Dems have enough power to sweep aside the back-assward attitudes of millions of Americans, so they will turn on a dime and rush out to buy rice for gay weddings? Obviously not.

What if they're telling you the truth? What if they are, in fact, doing all that can be practicably achieved under the present circumstances? Is that their fault, that they can't walk on water and change minds by fiat?

And its not simply that the resources are finite, that resources spent here cannot be spent there. it is also the inherent jealousy and mutual suspicion of us monkeys. To keep the coalition together and to keep them committed, not only must you not do that, you must not even appear to do that!

Because in each of your stakeholder groups, you have people eager to start in ragging on them for their failure. You don't think there are voices like yours amongst the latinos and the blacks? Hell, the Republicans were even trying to capitalize on that, urging latinos to punish Dems for their lack of commitment to their cause! (Talk about chutzpah!) Bet me. Bet me every dime you got, I can use it.

But I already said all this, and you didn't listen, you just gave me some shit about kneepads and blowing Obama (which, I'm sure you will eventually realize, you really, really shouldn't have...) So, OK, talking to the brick wall, I'll quit. Just leave me out of it, OK?

Kumabya, and peace on you.

Miller
10-28-2010, 04:02 PM
Tell you what, leave me out and I'll stay out, because I am really tired of talking to you.

Well, then shut the hell up, already. It's not like I've got a gun to your head, forcing you to keep coming back and misrepresenting my position.

Miller
10-28-2010, 04:03 PM
Wait, sorry. Is "gun to your head" still to faggy for you?

Scylla
10-28-2010, 07:00 PM
Did you attend a public school?

Oh. Bad move.

Yes. I did for 7 years. In North Jersey, a suburb of NYC. My parents pulled me and put me in Catholic school because I was selected with a group of others to be bussed 45 minutes to Newark New Jersey to attend the 4th grade. It was one of the worst schools in the country in one of the most dangerous cities in the country. I was to be one of about 50 white kids from a nice public school in the suburb to be shipped down to a bad school in Newark. About 50 black kids would be shipped up from Newark to go to the nice suburban public school. This was thought that it would make things more fairer and equalize things because it was bad that black Newark had terrible schools and white Suburbia had nice public schools.

My parents didn't think it was a great idea that my education and probably my wellbeing be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and bureaucratic injustice and incompetence.

They lived in that suburb from 1969 until 2007. I do their taxes so I know they paid over $14,000 a year in school taxes. That was the ending value. But let's say their average annual school tax was $7,000. That means they paid $266,000 worth of school taxes give or take over those 38 years. Or, $38,000 a year for my public school education.

My parents were doing well to live where they lived, and looking at it like that is a bit wrong. It is good for society for children to get educated, so those who can should pay more so that those can't can get a good education. But, the education wasn't good. And the education for other people that was being provided to justify the taking of those dollars (the schools in Newark,) was so abominably poor that anybody that went there was essentially doomed for life.

So, no I don't think the government gave my parents anything there.

Here in Pa, I pay a little over $7,000 per year in combined property and school district income taxes. I send my children to private school, a Catholic school because the public schools or 4th quintile in the state. There averages 40 children per class.

I did some math. Our school district has a budget of $104,000,000. It comes out to $12,500 per student. I am on the finance committee at my children's private school. The average class size is 12. They spend about $5,500 per student. They provide a vastly superior education as indicated by standardized test scores. They also provide a safe environment, access to teachers, a say in my child's education, all those things that public school does not.

The public school system is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies it defends and grows itself. It is rife with waste and corruption. There was a huge scandal because the district sold one school property to a relative of a board member because they said they didn't need the space. Then, two years later they needed to buy property and build a new school. A lot of people tied into the school board enriched themselves on that deal. We pay our teachers with a better health plan than is available in the private sector, and they receive that great rarity (outside of government,) a defined benefit pension.

I don't have figures, but I'd bet a lot more of the money in the Catholic school budget actually goes to teaching the children than does in the public school one.

Now, I've been living around hear since 1993 and my taxes have ranged steadily upward over time and income, But let's say they average 4k/year. That's 68k I pay for the privilege of not educating my children in public school, and I will continue to pay it forever.

Which would be fine, because I'm doing well. It would be fine if I was getting value for it. Instead, what I'm doing is enriching a corrupt system that is doing a poor and wasteful job of providing a fourth rate education.

Clearly, I'm not getting good value for my tax dollar. Oh, and the school district gets about $5,000,000 in Federal help in it's 104 million dollar budget, so it's not like the Federal Government is really helping.

So, on this count, I think it's pretty clear that the government is not giving me anything. It is taking.

Next?

Do you drive on public highways?

I do. And, you know what? I think I get a reasonable value for my Federal tax dollars that get spent on highways, and I think get reasonable value for the tax dollars I pay in gasoline tax. The roads in my experience are pretty safe, convenient, well-maintained, etc. Good job here.

Again, the government isn't really giving me anything. These are my tax dollars at work.

Do you have to set up a watch rotation so you can climb up on your roof to guard your house against roving bands of criminals, or do you have police protection?

I pay state and local taxes which support the police force, as does everybody else. A good job here. But this is not government giving me anything. I and everybody else are paying for it with tax dollars.

Are you choking on smog thick enough to cut, or are your local factories and power plants regulated as to what they can emit?

I live in a farm area. When I lived in New Jersey it was awful. If the government was supposed to be protecting the air and the environment they did a pretty shitty job in New Jersey. The government doesn't get any credit for me choosing a rural environment.

Do you work for a business that benefits from the government's prevention of fraud and encouragement of aboveboard business practices?

I'm in finance. I really can't say that the government did a good job in protecting me or anybody else from fraud and ensuring aboveboard business practices considering what just happened. Due to the Government's involvement in the rampantly corrupt and incompetant Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I would have to say not only did the government create an environment rampant with fraud and predatory business practices, they participated in it. So.... no.

I don't think anybody can really claim that they got good value for their tax dollars, and this is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. It was an utter and inexcusable failure.



The government's done an ok job here. Again though I am paying for it with my tax dollars, as are you. We've gotten value. But the government didn't give it to us. We bought it. There is a difference that you seem to be missing.

Anyway, I would personally pass on these protections. I think I can take care of myself. I concede though that this is a valid role for government, and one it's done ok with.

[quote]Do you use relatively stable and guaranteed US dollars to buy things, or are you reduced to bartering?

Yup. Good job here by the Gov. But again, I pay for it with my tax dollars. It is not being given to me.

Every. Single. Thing. That makes your life not a living hell of brutality, poverty and constant vigilance is something that the government carves out for you.

Bullshit. Government didn't do it for us. We did it. We created government as a society for the good of society, and we fund it to do things. If I go to a restaurant and eat, they don't give me food. I pay for it.

Unless you live in a rough-hewn shack off the grid, out of any police/sheriff's department's jurisdiction, and don't use money at all, you've been given something by the government.

No. Absolutely not. Where do you come off thinking the government is your Mommy. It's not. Where do you come off thinking that the government is the boss or the provider? It's not. You are. Government works for you. Or. At least it's supposed to. More often than not, I think government works for itself and those in it. That's what bureaucracies do. They do it even when we have choice and they are regulated. The government is a mammoth unchecked bureacracy. It is rife with self-serving corruption and waste, and you are paying for it.

Doubtless as a left-leaning individual you think corporations can be corrupt and dangerous in their ruthless pursuit of the dollar, right? Corporations don't pursue dollars. The people in them and the shareholders pursue the dollars. There's nothing inherently evil in the structure of a corporation, only in the people in it.

Like a corporation, the mother of all corporations, the people in the government protect themselves and the bureaucracy they make a living off of. The government is the biggest business in the country and the only one that is unregulated. You may laugh at the fallacy of self-regulation in the private sector, but the gov's is even more unchecked. Every bad thing that can happen in a corporation, happens in the government.

A government can give you nothing you do not already have. It just takes.


Because I know that I, and most likely you as well, can't afford to provide all those things myself. Nobody can.

I live in a society based on mutual benefit. We provide for each other. Government does not do it. It is merely the instrument by which we provide for each other. It is however an instrument that has gotten out of control, and become wasteful and self-interested and is in definite need of being scaled back and reformed. The last thing it needs is more power and control. The last thing any citizen should feel is greatful to the government.


Even Bill Gates can't liquidate enough money per annum to actually run his own military.

The guy's worth over 50 billion dollars. I don't think private security would be an issue for him on any reasonable scale that he might use. So, no.

And it's not government-as-concept that's depriving me of my rights...six states and multiple foreign nations currently offer me marriage. It's the Right electing neanderthals and politicians who are more interested in being re-elected than in doing the right thing that are depriving me of my rights. And that includes Democrats when they side with Republicans on gay issues.

I suppose you are right in principle here. It's not the government so much (beyond the extent to which it's dragging it's feet to manipulate you politically,) it's society that is depriving you of your rights. I stand corrected on this item.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-28-2010, 07:30 PM
I didn't mean to spark a tangent here, but the issue is not specifically that you directly benefit from public education. Of course, that's the easiest to understand, but to sell computers or have a market for your accounting skills or have the benefit of others who will make the technological advances in printers or telecommunications infrastructure or shipping or health care provision, you need to live in a society that provides a suitable educational base for more than just you. That's how you benefit and that's how there is an adequate context to allow you to make the money you make.

Seems like conservatives wouldn't have trouble with it if the terms were "invest in infrastructure" instead of pay taxes so that America can continue.

Scylla
10-28-2010, 08:06 PM
I agree, and I said as much in my previous post when I said education was good for society.

I don't think it's a matter of changing the name from "taxes " to "investment in infrastructure.". Conservatives are not against taxes. I doubt you'll fin any that don't recognize the need to fund government for the services we can get from it.

Personally, I don't begrudge taxes. I begrudge taxes the government takes to serve itself rather than society. I begrudge waste. I begrudge getting poor value for those dollars. That's all.

elucidator
10-28-2010, 09:36 PM
...I begrudge taxes the government takes to serve itself rather than society....

Well, now that sounds like a pretty cogent, sharp insight. Trouble I have with it, is that I don't know what it means. Is that one of those "big government" dogma, from the conservative catechism, a philosophical position about the nature of "government"?

Because as a practical criticism, rather than a philosophical aphorism, it doesn't parse well. Well, actually, it doesn't parse at all.

I mean, over here on the progressive side, we never thought government served society to begin with. We think it ought to, will of the people, all that good stuff. But we think it mostly has served the interests of the rich and powerful, and our interests if we scare the bejabbers out of 'em.

So, is that what you mean, then? You begrudge a society that protects the privileged at the expense of the many? Nah, I'm thinking that can't be it.

So, what does it mean?

Scylla
10-28-2010, 10:04 PM
Seems like a pretty simple concept to me, Lucy.

But I'll give you an example you'll like. Two words: Nixon. Watergate. Got it?

Hamlet
10-28-2010, 10:14 PM
*Sigh*.


Alrighty. Enjoy your thread.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-29-2010, 06:37 AM
*Sigh*.


Alrighty. Enjoy your thread.Yeah, I'm sorry to have provided the distraction. Scylla, would you mind ignoring what I said and returning to your efforts to defend the proposition that liberals hate gays? I think there were a number of really good questions others had for you that seem to be unresolved yet.

elucidator
10-29-2010, 07:32 AM
Wait, sorry. Is "gun to your head" still to faggy for you?

Depends, I guess, buttmunchkin. Is it one of these?

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/smithandwesson/smithandwesson3913ls.asp

Scylla
10-29-2010, 07:44 AM
Hamlet:

As for why those liberal groups weren't trying to win, or trying very hard at least:

I'll repeat: because they didn't. It seems a pretty basic constitutional question to me; How is it possibly constitutional to disqualify able bodied citizens from serving in the military because of their sexual preference? There's all kind of precedent gong back 40 years and more that this type of discrimination is not ok. You got racial and sexual integration mandated. What is different about sexual preference? You would have thought there would have been some liberal judge somewhere that would have given them a win.

Likely you'll say the political climate wasn't yet right. Yup. So they just did enough to show they were working on it, but not enough to actually get a win which would have caused a backlash... Until the climate changed and it becomes politically expedient. Then the LCR's jumped the gun and won an injunction.... Dammit! At exactly the wrong time.... Dammit! So the Democrats unwon it.

As for your second question. It's vanity voting. Most of the time everybody knows exactly how these votes ate going to go before they happen. A lot of the voting is actually posturing. If a vote is safe or a foregone conclusion, people will vote simply so they can say they voted for or against something.

The bill was doomed from the start. It wasn't going to pass. The main goal didn't actually seem to be to pass it, but to pose for a position.

In this case the Democrats are like that guy trying to get into a fight but his friends are holding him back. The only reason he feels comfortable looking for a fight is because his friends are holding him back. If his friends let him go, he doesn't fight. He runs.

The Tepublcans were holding back the dems, but when the lCR won, did the Dems fight or run?

They didn't want to win. They wanted to posture.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 07:48 AM
And sorry for the delay, but thanks for the reminder.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 08:26 AM
Hamlet:

As for why those liberal groups weren't trying to win, or trying very hard at least:

I'll repeat: because they didn't. It seems a pretty basic constitutional question to me; How is it possibly constitutional to disqualify able bodied citizens from serving in the military because of their sexual preference? There's all kind of precedent gong back 40 years and more that this type of discrimination is not ok. You got racial and sexual integration mandated. What is different about sexual preference? You would have thought there would have been some liberal judge somewhere that would have given them a win.So, no actual evidence, just "didn't win = didn't try".

You do realize how preposterous that sounds, don't you?

Don't you?

It took almost a hundred years to get a court to order an end of racial segregation. It was almost 20 years to get Bowers v. Hardwick overruled. Do you think Court cases are like athletic contests in movies, where the underdog who tries harder against great talent will win every time? Is it that fantasy world you live in that not winning means didn't try hard enough.

Like I said, ocean of stupid.

Then the LCR's jumped the gun and won an injunction.... Dammit! At exactly the wrong time.... Dammit!Did you even read about the Witt case? The one the court in the LCR case relied on to find DADT violated the constitution? The one the ACLU had filed and took to the 9th circuit, well before any ruling in the LCR case? And, again, you have no evidence whatsoever that LCR did a tiny thing different (other than have a different judge at a different time) than any of the other groups that would actually change the result to their favor. (Not to take anything away from the LCR for doing a great job winning). But that lack of evidence won't stop you.

As for your second question. It's vanity voting. Most of the time everybody knows exactly how these votes ate going to go before they happen. A lot of the voting is actually posturing. If a vote is safe or a foregone conclusion, people will vote simply so they can say they voted for or against something.

The bill was doomed from the start. It wasn't going to pass. The main goal didn't actually seem to be to pass it, but to pose for a position.It passed the House. OVER REPUBLICAN OBJECTION AND VOTES. And it would have passed the Senate, but the REPUBLICANS filibustered and the Democrats couldn't get to 60 votes to bypass it.

In this case the Democrats are like that guy trying to get into a fight but his friends are holding him back. The only reason he feels comfortable looking for a fight is because his friends are holding him back. If his friends let him go, he doesn't fight. He runs.

The Tepublcans were holding back the dems, but when the lCR won, did the Dems fight or run?

They didn't want to win. They wanted to posture.They wanted to win. Hell, they won in the House, they won in the White House. It's the Senate REPUBLICANS that are stopping them from winning in the Senate and getting it repealed.

Yet, despite all those facts, despite you complete lack of any evidence, despite your inane and unsupported conclusions about the legal system, you still think the Republicans are better on homosexual issues.

Ocean of stupid.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 08:51 AM
Hamlet:

You can handsets at it and call it names, but it is evidence. For fifteen years they didn't win, they got nowhere trying to repeal a law that they themselves put in place.

When the LCR won an injunction, Obama overturned it, because he didn't like the way it was won??????

That's like taking back the winning field goal because you want to go for the touchdown. Outside of political expediency before an election, it makes no sense.

What now seems to be a likely course of events?

Hmmmm.

How about the current bill gets tied up (because of Republicans, no doubt.). The democrats lose big in a couple of days, and then the chances of such a bill passing are nil.

Obama gets to say he gave it his best shot, but it didn't happen. He gets to blame Rebublicans. There are no gays in the military, and the gay vote stays safely ensconced with the Dems.

Gays are being played.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 08:52 AM
"handsets" should be hand wave. Damn iPhone. I'm traveling again.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 09:09 AM
Hamlet:

You can [handwave] at it and call it names, but it is evidence.No, the fact they lost is evidence that they lost. Not that they didn't try. You have zero evidence that they didn't try. You don't even have to be a lawyer to know your idea that not winning a court case = not trying is completely without a basis in logic or reality.
When the LCR won an injunction, Obama overturned it, because he didn't like the way it was won??????And, for the 4th time, I think Obama's decision to appeal was the wrong thing to do. Because I think the repeal of DADT will be more difficult after the midterm elections (thanks to Republicans), for political expediency, I'd rather they get their ass in gear to comply with the order.

How about the current bill gets tied up (because of Republicans, no doubt.). The democrats lose big in a couple of days, and then the chances of such a bill passing are nil.Let me try your logic on this. The repeal of DADT passed the House. That means that the Republicans who voted against it, actually wanted DADT to be repealed because they didn't try hard enough to stop it.

Not very convincing logic, is it.

Obama gets to say he gave it his best shot, but it didn't happen. He gets to blame Rebublicans. There are no gays in the military, and the gay vote stays safely ensconced with the Dems.

Gays are being played.While I agree, the Democrats don't do enough for homosexuals, you're absolutely wrong that the Republicans are any better. The Republicans are the ones who stopped the repeal of DADT, not the Democrats.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 09:21 AM
My pointid that the Republicans are better in the sense that they are open in their animosity towards Gays whereas the democrats are false in their friendship.

Look, what I really believe is that there is no difference at all between republicans and Democrats other than who they are trying to appeal to and prey upon. Serously, Obama is George bush.

They all suck.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 10:02 AM
Hamlet:

Easy way to settle this. If I'm right the bill won't pass by the end of the year. If you are right Obama will keep his promise and it will.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 10:23 AM
Hamlet:

Easy way to settle this. If I'm right the bill won't pass by the end of the year. If you are right Obama will keep his promise and it will.How will that settle anything we've talked about?

How about, if the Packers get to 9 wins this year, that means I was right and you were wrong. Or if it snows in Des Moines before December 21st, that means you were right.

The Republicans are still fighting it's passage. The Democrats can't pass over the filibuster. I would love it if Reid would quit fucking around with it, but I highly doubt that, after this election, the Republicans will suddenly wake up and start working for the repeal of DADT, DOMA, the passage of gay marriage, or any of the other myriad issues important to equal rights for homosexuals.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 10:30 AM
Because Obama overturned the injunction based on his stated confidence that it would get passed b the end of the year.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 10:31 AM
If he knows it can't get passed, and he overturned the injunction then..... He's really not trying to win, is he?

Scylla
10-29-2010, 10:39 AM
And again, would he want to win this? It'll piss off his religious supporters, and once he's won, the next step is fighting for gay marriage. He does not want to fight that fight. He already came out against it. Winning this, the democratic stance is against gay marriage, just like the Republcans. There is nothing to distinguish or hold gay voters to the democratic party.

Fighting DADT without wnning it gets Dems credit for gay rights, doesn't go too far in pissing off religious types, and postpones the whole marriage debacle which will be a sticky wicket indeed.

There is no incentive for them to win, and every incentive not to. People always follow ter incentives.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-29-2010, 10:44 AM
How will that settle anything we've talked about?

How about, if the Packers get to 9 wins this year, that means I was right and you were wrong. Or if it snows in Des Moines before December 21st, that means you were right.

The Republicans are still fighting it's passage. The Democrats can't pass over the filibuster. I would love it if Reid would quit fucking around with it, but I highly doubt that, after this election, the Republicans will suddenly wake up and start working for the repeal of DADT, DOMA, the passage of gay marriage, or any of the other myriad issues important to equal rights for homosexuals.There's a good chance Reid will be out after next week, replaced by a staunch conservative, so that means the chances of passage should go up, right?

Or does it all depend on how much confidence we have in its passage? I'm clapping really fucking hard right now!

elucidator
10-29-2010, 11:50 AM
Clapping like a motherfuck!

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 11:54 AM
And again, would he want to win this?Obama is the entirety of the Democratic party, nor of liberals. If you've been paying any attention whatsoever, there are many liberals, myself included, who are pissed at him for trying to compromise with the right on many issues. DADT is but one of them.

And, again, the passage or not of the repeal of DADT is in the hands of the Republicans. Unless the Democrats get a filibuster proof majority, which isn't going to happen soon, the Republicans can block, just as they've already done.

You keep focusing solely on the Democrats, solely on Obama, and completely ignoring the Repubican party's role in this crap. You try and blame the Democrats, who passed the repeal in the house, who tried in the Senate, and completely ignore the role of the Republicans. Well, except when it suits your purpose. Then you'll pick and choose the LCR case and pretend it means something about republicans as a whole.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm not ignoring the republicans, it's just there doing nothing exceptional, behaving true to form.

Of course the Republicans are going to block it. Of course it's in their hands. How did it get there? Who put it there?

Who snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, overturned the stay, and through it right back into an impossible to win situation?

Sorry, he is the leader of the Democrats. He's the President.

You seem amused when I say the Democrats aren't trying to win this and ask for what evidence I have, bur I can't think of a more concrete example of trying to lose than what the Democrats and Obama have just done.

It's like if you threw a baby into a lion's cage and then said "hey look at that mean lion eating the baby!"

We all know the Republicans will fight it, but the Democrats are supposed to be supporting it. This is what I was saying before about it being set up to fail. It's posturing. They want to look like they ate supporting you without actually accomplishing anything. Accomplishing something would be bad.

elucidator
10-29-2010, 12:12 PM
And this just in, like yesterday.

Most troops wouldn't oppose serving with gays, survey finds

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102807669.html

This could well be the final nail. Now, on what basis can the Pubbies oppose ending DADT? The brass are on board, the rank and file are on board. Pubbies are ever eager to use the patriotism ploy, to drape their lies in red, white, and blue bunting and blither about how much they love our heroes. Well, it appears our heroes are on the right side of this, so now what?

Nothing, is what, they're screwed, blued and tattooed. Now, they have to scramble to find a rationale to erase all their previous statements, because they are born again, they have seen the light, no, wait, they always thought so, really, it was just.....it was just....well, there's a very good reason.

I think it will be this: we were never really against repeal, we just wanted to be sure it was done the right way, not some activist judge, not some overreaching on the part of Obama. We just wanted to be sure it was done in the Congress, the right way, and now that Obama has served us this lovely platter of crow, we are going to chow down with great enthusiasm, nom, nom, nom. Yummy!

Boys and girls, pals and gals, a great injustice is about to be torn down. Yeee-haw!

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 12:45 PM
Who snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory, overturned the stay, and through it right back into an impossible to win situation?

Sorry, he is the leader of the Democrats. He's the President.Like a fucking dog with a bone. Just keep repeating the same thing, pointing out the same issue over and over.
You seem amused when I say the Democrats aren't trying to win this and ask for what evidence I have, bur I can't think of a more concrete example of trying to lose than what the Democrats and Obama have just done.We are not amused. I'm frustrated that you seem to think that the "try to lose" extends to everyone involved the fight for equal rights for homosexuals, including the ACLU, the Serviceman's legal network, and all the other liberal groups involved in the legal challenges to DADT. I'm frustrated when you, by most accounts a relatively intelligent person, comes up with unsupported conclusions like that to support his political beliefs.

We all know the Republicans will fight it, but the Democrats are supposed to be supporting it. This is what I was saying before about it being set up to fail. It's posturing. They want to look like they ate supporting you without actually accomplishing anything. Accomplishing something would be bad.They accomplished something. They passed the repeal in the house. They tried to accomplish something and get it passed in the Senate, but couldnt' BECAUSE OF REPUBLICANS.

I think we're simply at the point of repeating ourselves. I've made my points, you've made yours. And while we agree that Obama has messed up by appealling the DADT ruling (although there are reasons for it), I think some of the assertions you've made in this thread are completely unsupportable.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 01:04 PM
Obama made a mistake? A mistake implies an accident or a miscalculation.

What mistake?

Does Obama think it is going to pass in the Senate? Does he think the Republicans are not going to block it?

Does he think he is going to win big on Tuesday and suddenly have enough votes to push things through?

I don't think any of those things are credible.

How the can you call it a mistake? What was the error? What was the miscalculation?

Hmmmmm?

If there is no error or miscalculation, then it is not a mistake. It is deliberate.

The deliberate consequence is that DADT remains in place now, and repealing it becomes untenable after the election.

Your right. Is not one man. He doesn't make these decisions in a vacuum. He has strategists and planners helping him. He works with the entire Democratic power base.

It is deliberate. They don't want it overturned. They just want to be seen as trying, and let Republicans take the heat for the failure. That strengthens their base.

You think I'm wrong? Ok. What was the mistake? What didn't go the way they thought it would?

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 01:12 PM
Obama made a mistake? A mistake implies an accident or a miscalculation.

What mistake?Really Scylla? A semantic argument over a word?

Whatever. Enjoy yourself.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 01:30 PM
Really Scylla? A semantic argument over a word?

Whatever. Enjoy yourself.

Hardly. This has been the whole focus of our discussion.

I maintain that the DEmocratic structure does not want DADT repealled, but just wants to be seen to try. It was overturned and a democratic president put it back, saying he did want it overturned, but in another way which would happen by the end of the year.

There seems to be no way that that will actually happen.


You are saying that they really want to but made a mistake which is why it won't be repealled.

Asking what the mistake was and how they made it seems like areasonable question to me, but if you don't want to answer it that's ok with me.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Really Scylla? A semantic argument over a word?

Whatever. Enjoy yourself.You're not really surprised by this are you? I used to call his construction of arguments around these kinds of tortured, twisty and deceitful spurts of pseudo-logic Scylla-jisms. (That is, until I was chided by elucidator for doing so. Hey, I found it funny.)

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 01:48 PM
Hardly. This has been the whole focus of our discussion.Is there an imaginary poster named Mamlet or Hamler that maybe you're confusing me with? Because that's not been the focus at all of what I've been talking about.

I maintain that the DEmocratic structure does not want DADT repealled, but just wants to be seen to try.Wow. A "democratic structure"? That includes ACLU, all the liberals groups, HRC, all working together to make sure ... that they fail miserably at what the try to accomplish.

Fascinating.

You are saying that they really want to but made a mistake which is why it won't be repealled.I am not saying that. I wish I were more surprised that you apparently aren't paying enough attention to understand what I am actually saying, though.

It won't be repealled because OF REPUBLICANS. They have the votes in the Senate to pass it, but THE REPUBLICANS filibustered it. They did pass it in the house. And Obama will sign it if passed. No "mistake", just anti-homosexual feelings by legislators and their constituents, a majority of which (not all by any stretch) are Republicans.

Asking what the mistake was and how they made it seems like areasonable question to me, but if you don't want to answer it that's ok with me.Fine. I won't answer a question about something you made up.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 01:50 PM
You're not really surprised by this are you? I used to call his construction of arguments around these kinds of tortured, twisty and deceitful spurts of pseudo-logic Scylla-jisms. (That is, until I was chided by elucidator for doing so. Hey, I found it funny.)

Yup. Namecalling always seemed to be your forte. Unsurprising as you don't seem to have the intellectual chops necessary to construct an argument.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 02:01 PM
Hamlet:

It won't be repealled because OF REPUBLICANS. They have the votes in the Senate to pass it, but THE REPUBLICANS filibustered it. They did pass it in the house. And Obama will sign it if passed. No "mistake", just anti-homosexual feelings by legislators and their constituents, a majority of which (not all by any stretch) are Republicans.

Yes. I know. And who put it back in front of the Republicans to be knocked down after it was already declared unconstitutional?

Do you blame the lion that eats the baby or the guy who throws the baby into the lion's cage?

You seem to be arguing that the guy who throws baby into the lion's cage really wants to protect it by putting it safe in a cage, and the blame the lion.

I'm saying that's stupid we all know what the lion is. The only one acting out of character is the guy throwing the lion in the cage "to protect it."

But yeah, he's still a good babysitter. Damn those lions.

Hentor the Barbarian
10-29-2010, 02:02 PM
Yup. Namecalling always seemed to be your forte. Unsurprising as you don't seem to have the intellectual chops necessary to construct an argument.I like to think I'm skill both in name-calling and constructing arguments. Of course, we are never quite as good as others in recognizing our limitations, are we? Oh yeah, I nearly forgot: dumbass.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 02:06 PM
I like to think I'm skill both in name-calling and constructing arguments. Of course, we are never quite as good as others in recognizing our limitations, are we? Oh yeah, I nearly forgot: dumbass.

Oh I agree. You are equally as skilled in both.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 02:21 PM
Yes. I know. And who put it back in front of the Republicans to be knocked down after it was already declared unconstitutional?Do you not understand how our government works? Do you understand that a district court ruling is different than bills in Congress? Shall we rewatch that Schoolhouse Rock episode with the different branches of government?

There was no "put[ting] it back in front of the Republicans to be knocked down after it was already declared unconstitutional." It's a non-sensical question that should only be asked by someone who has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our government works.

Do you blame the lion that eats the baby or the guy who throws the baby into the lion's cage?

You seem to be arguing that the guy who throws baby into the lion's cage really wants to protect it by putting it safe in a cage, and the blame the lion.

I'm saying that's stupid we all know what the lion is. The only one acting out of character is the guy throwing the lion in the cage "to protect it."

But yeah, he's still a good babysitter. Damn those lions.Wow, what a bizarre analogy. Republicans are no more responsible for their anti-homosexual voting record than a lion eating their baby. It's actually the Democrats fault that the Republicans filibustered the repeal, and have continuously voted against gay rights.

Maybe it's time to change that ocean of stupidity to Waterworld.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 02:29 PM
Maybe. It looks to me like you're deliberately dodging the question I've been asking you, and covering up with insults, instead of addressing it.

I've asked it about 4 or 5 different ways now and your non-answer tells me enough.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 02:43 PM
Maybe. It looks to me like you're deliberately dodging the question I've been asking you, and covering up with insults, instead of addressing it.Pointing out that the questions are fundamentally flawed and incredibly stupid is not dodging them. I've asked it about 4 or 5 different ways now and your non-answer tells me enough.If the question is why Obama is appealling the ruling in DADT, you've had Bricker, Richard Parker, and me all provide you answers to that in this thread. But since not a one of them was "he hates gays", you might have missed them.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 03:01 PM
Pointing out that the questions are fundamentally flawed and incredibly stupid is not dodging them.

Covering up with insults instead of addressing the issue is dodging. You're still doing it.

If the question is why Obama is appealling the ruling in DADT, you've had Bricker, Richard Parker, and me all provide you answers to that in this thread. But since not a one of them was "he hates gays", you might have missed them.

I read those parts. The "follow everybody to the mess hall" explanation wasn't quite satisfying. They hold no water, as there certainly does seem to be precedent for what court rulings a president decides to challenge and enforce.

Seeking a stay so promptly was only one of several possible courses. He could have accepted the decision, or simply filed an appeal as has been pointed out. You seem to think that he was forced to seek a stay. It was a choice.

You yourself characterized it as a mistake.

It has not Bern reasonably shown that the Prez was forced to seek a stay.


If this makes you uncomfortable, we can stop. After 9 pages I'm tired of the vitriol so if you do want to continue, I'll ask you to be civil and I'll do the same

Bryan Ekers
10-29-2010, 03:18 PM
Republicans are like baby-eating lions, now?

elucidator
10-29-2010, 03:26 PM
Oh, I don't think he was forced to. There are lots of good reasons for him to do so, not least of which is his constitutional role as the executive. I think he wanted to. I think he either knew, or was willing to bet, that the survey I offered above was going to reflect precisely what it does reflect: an acceptance of gay soldiers amongst the rank and file.

I think what he wants is for this to be brought to Congress and decided there. Just as I said, an executive order can be overturned, so can a court order. But the law is the law, and that's what he wants. I think he's right.

As well, there is the additional political benefit of cramming this right down the Republicans throats. Dollars to doughnut holes, Pubbies will be scrambling to try to find a rationale that makes their previous opposition look like total support, because this one is a loser. The public is behind it, the brass is behind it, the troops are behind it (Our heroes!).

Not even a slam dunk. Just walk up to the net and drop it in.

But let us not forget the Republican who so bravely stood for the repeal, and all their public statements to that effect! Actually, I seem to have forgotten, but luckily Scylla is at hand, and can list for our approval the many, many Republicans who fit this description.

Too many? OK, maybe just the top fifty. Twenty? Ten?

Boy, that would sure show us, huh, Scylla? Here's your chance, really make us eat some crow. We cringe in dread.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 03:26 PM
If this makes you uncomfortable, we can stop. After 9 pages I'm tired of the vitriol so if you do want to continue, I'll ask you to be civil and I'll do the same"Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it."

"Seems to me the President and any Federal judge could nullify any law they wanted.

Judge: This law's unconstitutional.
President: Okay.

Done. Two-thirds of the goverment cancelling out the remaining third. I'm pretty sure the system wasn't set up for that."

"Obama has come out against DADT, but he wants congress to get rid of it."

"Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly."

"Another reason for the DoJ to appeal court decisions such as this one is to make sure that the issue goes all the way to the Supreme Court."

"I think "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong. I think it doesn't serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I've gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned -- something that's unprecedented."

"I was very deliberate in working with the Pentagon so that I've got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs being very clear about the need to end this policy. That is part of a strategy that I have been pursuing since I came into office. And my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year.

Now, as usual, I need 60 votes. So I think that, Joe, the folks that you need to be having a really good conversation with -- and I had that conversation with them directly yesterday, but you may have more influence than I do -- is making sure that all those Log Cabin Republicans who helped to finance this lawsuit and who feel about this issue so passionately are working the handful of Republicans that we need to get this thing done."

"On the other hand, it would be highly unusual for the government to fail to appeal a district court decision striking down a federal statute. A failure to appeal this case will likely generate substantial criticism."

"The Administration can wait until after the elections to decide whether or not to appeal. It can take the position now that government lawyers are reviewing options. The Administration can then see where things stand after the November elections."

"olitics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires.

Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point."

"The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them."

All from this thread or linked in this thread. Again, not a one included "he hates gays". And none that included "He really doesn't want to win" either.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 03:27 PM
Republicans are like baby-eating lions, now?In Scylland.

elucidator
10-29-2010, 03:29 PM
Republicans are like baby-eating lions, now?

There's the question of making a state lion cross for immoral papooses.

jayjay
10-29-2010, 03:30 PM
There's the question of making a state lion cross for immoral papooses.

Do you feel better after that stretch? :D

elucidator
10-29-2010, 03:32 PM
"The blues isn't about making yourself feel better, the blues is about making other people feel bad!"

- The late, lamented "Bleeding Gums" Murphy.

Miller
10-29-2010, 04:45 PM
I think what he wants is for this to be brought to Congress and decided there. Just as I said, an executive order can be overturned, so can a court order. But the law is the law, and that's what he wants. I think he's right.

Sorry to break your restraining order against me, but I feel compelled to point out that the solution you're hitching your wagon to is that Congress will over turn an existing law. So I'm not greatly comforted by your insistence that this is some bulletproof way to prevent any future reversals on this issue.

As well, there is the additional political benefit of cramming this right down the Republicans throats. Dollars to doughnut holes, Pubbies will be scrambling to try to find a rationale that makes their previous opposition look like total support, because this one is a loser. The public is behind it, the brass is behind it, the troops are behind it (Our heroes!).

Public support for health care reform was also pretty strong. Didn't stop the Republicans from doing their level best to sabotage it. Also, I'd like to think the primary concern on this should be making sure an injustice is ended, not scoring a political point against your enemies.

However, I do think your analysis on this has more merit than you'd like. If DADT is overturned in the courts, Obama can't claim it as a victory in 2012. It works out better for him, personally, if he can get the bill passed and use it as evidence for all the good work he's done in office when he's up for re-election. If he can't get the bill passed, he can still use that as evidence of Republican obstructionism in the face of expert and popular opinion. But he can't do either if the law is overturned in the courts and the bill becomes moot. Hence, the appeal, hoping to buy time to get the bill through, even though the odds of him getting it passed just get longer after the elections next month. And let's face it, by fighting the court decision, he's not really hurting himself very much. He might lose a couple of gay votes, but there aren't enough gay voters out there to make too much of a difference one way or the other. On the other hand, gay rights organizations are a good source of funding for him, and they're not likely to shut down the pipeline over this one issue - again, it's not like there's anyone else they can back, so they're pretty much stuck with him. And so DADT sticks around for another four or five years, because doing the right thing by gays doesn't fit into the Democrat's political calculus.

Scylla
10-29-2010, 06:13 PM
Hamlet et al:


Well, I've been reading the law and precedent and some articles, and it looks like I'm right and you all, including Bricker are wrong.

As I said earlier, the President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and, if, in his opinion a law is unconstitutional he can choose not to enforce it. In fact, that is his duty

From here:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/nonexcut.htm

I have reflected further on the difficult questions surrounding a President's decision to decline to execute statutory provisions that the President believes are unconstitutional, and I have a few thoughts to share with you. Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional."

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). There the Court sustained the President's view that the statute at issue was unconstitutional without any member of the Court suggesting that the President had acted improperly in refusing to abide by the statute. More recently, in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991), all four of the Justices who addressed the issue agreed that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." Id. at 906 (Scalia, J., concurring); see also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (recognizing existence of President's authority to act contrary to a statutory command)."

The Supreme Court plays a special role in resolving disputes about the constitutionality of enactments. As a general matter, if the President believes that the Court would sustain a particular provision as constitutional, the President should execute the statute, notwithstanding his own beliefs about the constitutional issue. If, however, the President, exercising his independent judgment, determines both that a provision would violate the Constitution and that it is probable that the Court would agree with him, the President has the authority to decline to execute the statute."



This article deals directly with the issue:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/19/is-obama-s-excuse-for-not-repealing-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-legitimate.html

"There are two different arguments for why Obama could choose not to enforce the law. The first one: he could say it was unconstitutional. At the time that DADT was passed, it was constitutional because there was no Supreme Court precedent establishing that homosexual relationships are protected under the implied privacy rights of the Bill of Rights. Then, 10 years later, the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas overturned an anti-sodomy statute on the grounds that it violated the privacy rights of gay couples. Since then, laws that impinge upon the sexual-privacy rights of gay couples are presumed unconstitutional if they have no rational state interest to justify them. “Since Lawrence v. Texas, you can no longer discriminate against gays without reason,” says Mazur. “The constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ has changed since Congress enacted it.” Given that top military leaders have said that DADT is harmful to the military, Obama could have simply announced that, absent the state interest to justify DADT, it is now unconstitutional and will no longer be enforced.
Obama’s other option: simply using his executive power to decide how the laws will be, or won’t be, executed. So Obama could simply order the military to stop applying the law, or to use it much more narrowly and infrequently. “There are a lot of laws on the books he doesn’t rigorously enforce,” notes Geoffrey Corn, a military law expert who teaches at South Texas College of Law. “The courts have recognized that while Congress has full authority to pass laws, the president has authority over when to enforce laws,” says Turley. Many criminal statutes, for example, are often unenforced and prosecutors have a lot of discretion on when to bring charges and what sentence to seek.

The president would be on strong footing in this case because he has especially wide latitude in interpreting laws that govern the military. Congress clearly was acting within its authority under Article I of the Constitution to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

snip

If Obama didn’t pursue one of those permanent solutions, he could temporarily let gays serve while waiting for the courts or Congress to act by using his stop-loss power, which was explicitly granted by Congress in 1984 to override military discharges if troops are needed. “Stop-loss authority is a statutory authority enacted by Congress,” Mazur explains. “It gives the president authority to suspend any law that involves the discharge of service members. In times of national emergency there might be lots of reasons.” Given all the accounts of valuable servicemen and servicewomen, such as Arabic translators, being discharged under DADT, it would seem a fairly straightforward case for Obama to make. That would buy a couple of years for Congress to act or the current legal challenge to reach the Supreme Court."

Snip

and REALLY IMPORTANTLY:

The Obama administration has consistently argued that it must vigorously defend laws that it opposes as part of its obligation to “faithfully execute” the president’s duties. But not all experts agree with that interpretation. “Why not just let the injunction stand?” Corn demands. “You don’t enforce laws overturned by the highest court in land, so why not accept the lower court ruling?” Many scholars say that there is no requirement for Obama to appeal. “The president has complete authority not to appeal the decision in these cases,” says Turley, who in 1989 successfully argued in federal appeals court for overturning a law and saw the George H.W. Bush administration choose not to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of that decision. “The appeal is completely discretionary. Whatever duty the president has to defend the existing statute was satisfied before the trial court.”


Snip

“The president has a duty to separate his administration from an unconstitutional statute. If a statute required racial discrimination, would the president seriously be arguing that he and his administration would have to defend the statute all the way to the Supreme Court?”


There's some defense, but even those defending Obama seem to think he has the authority to not bother to appeal it if he feels it is clean cut.

“If there is an act of Congress, it seems reasonable to me to say that it binds the president and he must faithfully execute it,” Burt says. “It is within the president’s discretion to say that the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans is so clear that there’s no point in appealing,” Burt concedes. “But that’s not the case here: there have been conflicts among district courts and courts of appeal that have looked at this statute.” Most of those rulings preceded Lawrence v. Texas. Lawrence strengthens the argument that DADT is unconstitutional, but courts have shown a lot deference on questions of military necessity."



****


Soooooooo

As it seems to me:

1. The Duty of the President is to uphold the Constitution

2. He may choose to ignore or not enforce laws that he finds unconstitutional and in pending court cases he should as he thinks the supreme court would find.

3. There is no compelling reason that he must appeal or seek a stay. There is Precedent for Presidents not doing so in the past, and even Obama has, IIRC suggested that he wouldn't enforce some laws if they were enacted.

4. The strongest argument for DADT is that the President has quite a bit of authority over how the military should be handled and courts and congress have historically shown him some latitude as commander-in-chief.

elucidator
10-29-2010, 06:15 PM
Miller:

Unless, of course, he's telling you the truth. Unless actually doing it means more to him than getting credit for it. I lack your capacity to peer into the souls of others and inventory the contents, but that possibility yet remains. If you can submt a Certificate of Telepathy, that would go a long way.

But, point of fact, all you (and your new pal, Scylla) have is interpretation, you insist his actions are a betrayal, I and my ilk point out that more than one interpretation is possible. Indeed, plausible.

As others have pointed out, the DoJ presentation to the court was more form than substance, they suited up but didn't play. Kind of move you might expect from a constitutional law wonk. Which he is. Smart one, too, according to testimony here. Keeping in mind that these are self-confessed lawyers, but still.

Besides, your dastardly plot makes no sense. If he wanted to get your votes and then betray you, wouldn't he have manuevered to get this postponed beyond the election? Keep your votes, but not piss of the troglodytes? Admittedly, he wasn't going to get much of the trog vote, but he could keep your approval at least, and thus avoid many a sleepless night.

And no, there is no restraining order on you. After all. you managed three fairly civil paragraphs without calling me a hypocrite, a 'phobe, a Democrat, or a presidential cocksucker. This is progress.

Revenant Threshold
10-29-2010, 06:52 PM
My pointid that the Republicans are better in the sense that they are open in their animosity towards Gays whereas the democrats are false in their friendship.

Look, what I really believe is that there is no difference at all between republicans and Democrats other than who they are trying to appeal to and prey upon. Serously, Obama is George bush.

They all suck. If I may ask a question to clarify this; do you believe that the Democrats not only are false in their friendship - that, for example, they pretend to be highly motivated about helping gay people in order to get their vote - and intend to do nothing about the situation, but on top of that they secretly harbour the same level of animosity towards gays as do Republicans?

Scylla
10-29-2010, 07:03 PM
If I may ask a question to clarify this; do you believe that the Democrats not only are false in their friendship - that, for example, they pretend to be highly motivated about helping gay people in order to get their vote - and intend to do nothing about the situation, but on top of that they secretly harbour the same level of animosity towards gays as do Republicans?

I don' know. I guess they run the gamut, just as Republicans do. I'm sure both parties have everything from very gay friendly folks to those who just make appropriate noises to those who openly despise gays. Probably the only difference is the distribution of those folks, with the friendly to gay side loaded with Democrats and the hostile loaded with Republicans.

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 07:06 PM
Hamlet et al:


Well, I've been reading the law and precedent and some articles, and it looks like I'm right and you all, including Bricker are wrong.I'm so glad to hear you did some research on the issue.

One thing I'll point out, though:

As I said earlier, the President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and, if, in his opinion a law is unconstitutional he can choose not to enforce it.I bolded the parts that are the problem with asserting that Obama MUST not appeal this case. First, Obama has specificially and repeatedly NOT given his opinion on whether or not DADT is unconstitutional. He may, he may not. Or, most likely, he may have an opinion, but want the judiciary and the legislature to have their say also. Second, "can" does not mean MUST. It means he has discretion to appeal or not appeal.

In this case, as has been repeatedly pointed out earlier in the thread, Obama may actually think that it is best (and more fitting the concepts of balancing of powers in the Constitution) if the President doesn't decide, all by himself, that a law is unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. Bricker, in fact, advocated for that very position, that the President shouldn't put his own reading about the Constitution above others and should let the judicial system complete it's determination first. Instead, he could seek a legislative solution, say, and I'm pulling this out of thin air, maybe seek the repeal of the statute in question by the legislature. Given that DADT has survived prior attacks and the arguments within the legal community over it, it's unconstitutionality is by no means a sure thing. Maybe Obama thinks letting the judiciary and the legislature decide is certainly more respectful to those branches and more in tune with the Constituion.

Obama's thinking wouldn't be anything new. As this previously linked article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130714416) states:

"On occasion, the Justice Department will even defend a law it knows is likely to be judged unconstitutional, said Seth Waxman, who served as President Bill Clinton's solicitor general.

Six federal judges had ruled against the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that made it a crime to make available to minors on the Internet material that was "indecent" or "patently offensive." Nevertheless, Waxman backed the law in an appeal to the Supreme Court. He lost there, but felt good about serving "our adversarial system of constitutional adjudication.""

"William French Smith, President Ronald Reagan's first attorney general, once said that defending congressional action that extended the ratification period for the proposed Equal Rights Amendment for women caused far and away his most uncomfortable moments in four years in office because of the irate calls he got from administration supporters — who staunchly opposed the ERA."

Of course, all of this was kinda the point I made in my first post in this thread when I said: "Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it. Now, maybe you are fine with the President deciding for himself not to defend the laws of the United States, me I'm not sure its so cut and dried. " And when Bricker replied: "Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly."

9 pages later, and we're back there.

Revenant Threshold
10-29-2010, 07:19 PM
I don' know. I guess they run the gamut, just as Republicans do. I'm sure both parties have everything from very gay friendly folks to those who just make appropriate noises to those who openly despise gays. Probably the only difference is the distribution of those folks, with the friendly to gay side loaded with Democrats and the hostile loaded with Republicans. I guess the issue that keeps me from agreeing with you on your point about the Democrats, overall, being worse on this is that while i'm sure i'd be more pissed off about someone doing something bad to me than someone who claimed to be my friend doing that same bad thing, I don't think i'd so easily draw the line like that when there's a differing amount of actual animosity behind it. I mean, betrayal is always nasty, but if it's a matter of betrayal due to overall indifference to the cause, i'm pretty sure as much as I might dislike one group for it i'm still going to dislike a group that actually has it out for me more. No-one likes being lied to, but if the thinking up at Democrat HQ (big generalisations here, but I hope you get what I mean) is "Eh, we can fuck over these people because there's more important things to us, and it's not like they have anywhere else to go", then as much as I would be displeased then i'm going to be more upset if at Republican HQ it's "We can fuck over these guys because they deserve to get fucked over". If one side is disproportionately gay-friendly and they're sharpening their back-stabbing knives, then they're bastards, but i'll take bastards who're acting out of prudence over bastards who're acting out of actual dislike.

Miller
10-29-2010, 07:35 PM
Unless, of course, he's telling you the truth. Unless actually doing it means more to him than getting credit for it.

If actually doing it meant more than getting the credit for it, he'd have let the court ruling stand.

I lack your capacity to peer into the souls of others and inventory the contents, but that possibility yet remains. If you can submt a Certificate of Telepathy, that would go a long way.

But, point of fact, all you (and your new pal, Scylla) have is interpretation, you insist his actions are a betrayal, I and my ilk point out that more than one interpretation is possible. Indeed, plausible.

You're no more of a mind-reader than I am. You want to believe the best interpretation of Obama's actions because you want to believe you backed a good guy for the office. I've had too much experience with otherwise "good guys" treating gays like crap to make that assumption any more. It's much easier to believe the best in people when you don't have much to lose by being proved wrong. Others of us need to be more suspicious.

As others have pointed out, the DoJ presentation to the court was more form than substance, they suited up but didn't play.

Then why suit up at all? If Obama feels he has a duty to defend even laws he finds repugnant, then surely he has a duty to defend them as vigorously as possible. What is the ethical difference between not defending the law at all, and defending it in such a way that you are likely to lose? If anything, this is even more evidence for my theory: that the appeal is just a delaying tactic to prevent someone else from stealing his thunder on this issue.


Besides, your dastardly plot makes no sense. If he wanted to get your votes and then betray you, wouldn't he have manuevered to get this postponed beyond the election? Keep your votes, but not piss of the troglodytes? Admittedly, he wasn't going to get much of the trog vote, but he could keep your approval at least, and thus avoid many a sleepless night.

I didn't say he wanted to get my vote. The crux of my theory is that he doesn't really care about my vote. There aren't enough individual gay voters out there to deter him from double-crossing us. Besides which, most of us will probably vote for him anyway, because we're either too scared of the alternative candidate, or because we support him on other issues where he can't afford to turn his coat. Which, incidentally, is precisely why he hasn't lost my vote over this issue, as pissed off as I am with him.

Nor did I say he wants to betray me. What he wants is to be able to add this to his tally of successful actions in congress to his (almost entirely heterosexual) base in two years. Most voters aren't going to be paying enough attention to this issue to take account of the individual political moves, or to remember them by 2012. They're going to remember that Obama championed legislature that got DADT removed. They're not going to remember that he was willing to risk the entire thing being sunk because it wasn't going to get resolved in a way that he could take personal credit for. And if it does sink, they're mostly going to remember it as another bit of successful Republican obstructionism, and not the fallout from a cynical glory-grab by the president.

And no, there is no restraining order on you. After all. you managed three fairly civil paragraphs without calling me a hypocrite, a 'phobe, a Democrat, or a presidential cocksucker. This is progress.

I don't think I actually called you a homophobe, did I?

In this case, as has been repeatedly pointed out earlier in the thread, Obama may actually think that it is best (and more fitting the concepts of balancing of powers in the Constitution) if the President doesn't decide, all by himself, that a law is unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. Bricker, in fact, advocated for that very position, that the President shouldn't put his own reading about the Constitution above others and should let the judicial system complete it's determination first. Instead, he could seek a legislative solution, say, and I'm pulling this out of thin air, maybe seek the repeal of the statute in question by the legislature. Given that DADT has survived prior attacks and the arguments within the legal community over it, it's unconstitutionality is by no means a sure thing. Maybe Obama thinks letting the judiciary and the legislature decide is certainly more respectful to those branches and more in tune with the Constituion.


In this case, though, it isn't the President alone deciding not to enforce an unconstitutional law: it would be the President acting in concord with the judicial branch. An example of the President acting alone to avoid a law that he feels is unjust would be Obama's decision not to enforce federal drug laws against California's medical marijuana users. Which goes back to a question I originally asked Bricker, which I don't think was ever addressed: if Obama is acting on this case out of a sense of duty to enforce laws he personally disagrees with, why is he not being consistent in that duty? And what (if anything) can be determined about his character by looking at the times he feels it necessary to do his duty, and the times he looks the other way?

And lastly, to Scylla: you've stated that, as far as gay rights go, Republicans have the dubious moral highground of being true to their beliefs in sabotaging attempts at gay equality, which at least makes them honest. My question is, why do you assume they are honest? If Democrats have discovered that they can profit by pretending to be friendly to gays, is it not equally likely that Republicans have discovered that they can profit by pretending to hate gays?

Hamlet
10-29-2010, 07:58 PM
In this case, though, it isn't the President alone deciding not to enforce an unconstitutional law: it would be the President acting in concord with the judicial branch.I think "in concord with the judicial branch" is a bit of an overstatement. One trial level court that has yet to survive even a single appeal and based in good part on a yet unappealed 9th circuit ruling. While I would certainly prefer he not appeal (and still hope he won't), I can certainly see how one district level, unappealed case that disagrees with other cases out there is not the most compelling basis for determining that the judiciary has reached a solid determination.

elucidator
10-29-2010, 08:42 PM
If actually doing it meant more than getting the credit for it, he'd have let the court ruling stand.

Well, we have some pretty good testimony here, from the esteemed firm of Hamlet, Paker, Hentor, and Bricker. Even though they have a strong aroma of law school, their thinking is remarkably clear and much aligned with mine own, hence right. To repeat them would be a pale reflection, please read their thoughts on that. Rather bright lads, really.

This might very well be a crafty political move from worthy aspirations. He intends not only to kill DADT, but bury it with a stake throughi its, ah, heart. I think that is the case.

...There aren't enough individual gay voters out there to deter him from double-crossing us...

Then there aren't enough votes for him to court you. If his support for gay rights is based solely on electoral advantage, why? Is such a position so universally popular in America that it is a guaranteed poltical advantage? How could that be, if the voting bloc is so minimal?

Unless, of course, he actually believes in it. Unless he's telling you the truth. It happens, you know, not as often as we would like, but it does happen.

...I don't think I actually called you a homophobe, did I?....

Wait, sorry. Is "gun to your head" still to faggy for you?

There's another way to interpret that remark? Be pleased to hear it, then we have only Democrat, hypocrite and presidential cocksucker. Mom will be so proud.

Miller
10-30-2010, 01:14 AM
This might very well be a crafty political move from worthy aspirations. He intends not only to kill DADT, but bury it with a stake throughi its, ah, heart. I think that is the case.

Now, now. That's not at all what I said, is it?

Then there aren't enough votes for him to court you. If his support for gay rights is based solely on electoral advantage, why? Is such a position so universally popular in America that it is a guaranteed poltical advantage? How could that be, if the voting bloc is so minimal?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a white straight male, correct? Is your support for Obama wholly unaffected by the stances he takes on issues facing Hispanics, women, blacks, Jews, and, of course, gays? Because given your rhetoric earlier in this thread, I'd gathered that his position on issues important to those groups was very important to you, even though you are not, yourself, a member of any of those groups. Or are you, perhaps, unique in that capacity for empathy?

There's another way to interpret that remark? Be pleased to hear it, then we have only Democrat, hypocrite and presidential cocksucker.

Well, I was trying to capture the general essence of this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13064558&postcount=111). Was "faggy" too over the top? "Stereotypically gay" is kind of a mouthful.

Mom will be so proud.

I learned from the best.

elucidator
10-30-2010, 12:26 PM
Now, now. That's not at all what I said, is it?...
No, its what I said. What you said was that Obama betrayed you. The eviidence you offer for this is that tactical, political manuevering about DADT. Which, as more knowledgeable people have tried to point out to you, is not nearly as cut and dried as you want to pretend.

But why? Why would he do that? A deep seated, festering hatred for gays that he managed to keep hidden until he could spring his trap, bwah ha ha ha ha? Sharks with friggin' laser beams next? Its a conspiracy?

Even if we give your position every benefit of doubt, its certainly no better than my own. A position, I remind, held by several others, none of whom you feel moved to slander.



...Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a white straight male, correct?...
Sure, now, after you guys stole the word "straight"! We were fine when you wanted tie-dye shirts and scented candles!

...Is your support for Obama wholly unaffected by the stances he takes on issues facing Hispanics, women, blacks, Jews, and, of course, gays? Because given your rhetoric earlier in this thread, I'd gathered that his position on issues important to those groups was very important to you, even though you are not, yourself, a member of any of those groups. Or are you, perhaps, unique in that capacity for empathy?...
Yeppers, been working that side of the street longer than you've been alive. But I don't have any way of gauging that. How many of us are there, who have no particular oppressed identity, but simply work for what is right because its right? For starters, half the human species is female. I'm sure a lot of us are "white", whatever that means, anymore.

But what of it? Is that some sort of accusation? My impersonal commitment to justice reveals some insincerity? You're not making a lot of sense here.


Well, I was trying to capture the general essence of ....Was "faggy" too over the top? "Stereotypically gay" is kind of a mouthful.


Horseshit. You were being insulting. Don't pee on my shoes and tell lme its raiining. You didn't have anything justifiable to throw at me, so you played the 'phobe card. Along with hypocrite, presidential cocksucker and Democrat.

Was I insulted? You better fucking believe it, I snarled around the house doing my best Yosemite Sam on meth impression, the dog won't come out from under the porch, not even for beer.

This is about tactics, and realpolitik. Which is icky, but there it is. There exists a progressive coalition, and all such coalitions have weaknesses, our enemies will exploit those weaknesses at every opportunity. Today, you helped them. Tomorrow, I hope you don't.

Unity wins, sniping, jealousy, and undermining our leaders (as flawed as they may be) only helps our enemies.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

elucidator
10-30-2010, 01:37 PM
Upon wise counsel, 'nuff' s nuff. We go our ways, I shrug it off, mindful of the comity and unity needed. So that one day, one day, we will all have equailty before the law, mutual respect and humane concern. So I set aside pettiness and pique, hopeful for the day when such restraint is no longer needed, when we bask in the sunshine of the American dream made whole.

Then I'll run over your toe with my wheelchair.

Condescending Robot
10-30-2010, 03:30 PM
If I may ask a question to clarify this; do you believe that the Democrats not only are false in their friendship - that, for example, they pretend to be highly motivated about helping gay people in order to get their vote - and intend to do nothing about the situation, but on top of that they secretly harbour the same level of animosity towards gays as do Republicans?

Nobody in either party believes anything except that he should be elected. Democratic "friendliness" to gays is no more real than Republican animosity. It's all about getting votes. Does anyone other than small children believe differently?

Miller
10-30-2010, 03:52 PM
No, its what I said. What you said was that Obama betrayed you. The eviidence you offer for this is that tactical, political manuevering about DADT. Which, as more knowledgeable people have tried to point out to you, is not nearly as cut and dried as you want to pretend.

But why? Why would he do that? A deep seated, festering hatred for gays that he managed to keep hidden until he could spring his trap, bwah ha ha ha ha? Sharks with friggin' laser beams next? Its a conspiracy?

I explained why he would do that. Because it would directly benefit his re-election chances, at very little risk of harm to himself. I've been pretty clear that I think he's acting out of callous self-interest, and not malicious bigotry. Repeatedly and deliberately conflating the two for the sake of cheap rhetoric doesn't do your argument any good.

Even if we give your position every benefit of doubt, its certainly no better than my own. A position, I remind, held by several others, none of whom you feel moved to slander.

None of the other people who hold your position have accused me of being a Republican shill for criticizing Obama. None of the others have condescended at me, lectured at me, or insulted me based on my sexuality. In short, lots of people have disagreed with me. Only you have been an asshole about it. So, I've been an asshole right back to you. I am, above all, a great believer in equal treatment.

Yeppers, been working that side of the street longer than you've been alive. But I don't have any way of gauging that. How many of us are there, who have no particular oppressed identity, but simply work for what is right because its right? For starters, half the human species is female. I'm sure a lot of us are "white", whatever that means, anymore.

But what of it? Is that some sort of accusation? My impersonal commitment to justice reveals some insincerity? You're not making a lot of sense here.

No, that one, at least, wasn't an accusation at all. I was trying to point out that by giving the appearance of being in favor of gay rights, Obama can win the favor of people other than gays. However, most people who aren't gay don't follow gay rights issues as closely as people whom it directly effects. They'll support Obama if he talks the talk, but they don't pay enough attention to notice if he's walking the walk.

Horseshit. You were being insulting. Don't pee on my shoes and tell lme its raiining. You didn't have anything justifiable to throw at me, so you played the 'phobe card.

Of course I was being insulting. So were you, when you called me a gay stereotype. If you're going to attack people over their sexuality, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when they bust out the "'phobe card."

Along with hypocrite, presidential cocksucker and Democrat.

You forgot "hippie."

This is about tactics, and realpolitik. Which is icky, but there it is. There exists a progressive coalition, and all such coalitions have weaknesses, our enemies will exploit those weaknesses at every opportunity. Today, you helped them. Tomorrow, I hope you don't.

Unity wins, sniping, jealousy, and undermining our leaders (as flawed as they may be) only helps our enemies.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

And again with the lecturing. You really don't have any idea how incredibly grating you are when you get up on your soapbox, do you? Seriously, you need to cut this shit out. If people start thinking you're the voice of the progressive movement, they're going to write us off as a bunch of sanctimonious wankers. And we're trying to keep that fact on the down low.

Scylla
10-30-2010, 04:39 PM
Hamlet:

I don't understand why you are arguing with me. My stance has been that the President has the option to do things, not that he must do things. What I have been arguing all along is that it is choice.

As President, seeking a stay or otherwise fighting a court decision that overturns a law you have claimed you are against seems a little odd.

Some have argued that he needs to follow somebody to the mess hall or the whole system of checks and balances collapses or what have you, or that it is the President's responsibility to seek to uphold laws when they are overturned, or to challenge them, or that such a challenge is basically automatic and not reflective of Obama's beleifs, but somehow part of some clerical process.

But.... that turns out to be bullshit. Presidents have accepted court decisions overturning laws in the past. And, as commander-in-chief he's considered to some special latitude in terms of things military.

So, it was totally and completely his call, his choice. This is what I said 9 pages ago, and you and a whole bunch of others have been arguing with me about it. I cited the President's oath of office on the first page, and his duty is to uphold the constitution.... not laws that are declared unconstitutional.

So.... He decided to challenge it. His stated reason is that he thinks its better for it to be overturned legislatively and that that will happen by the end of the year.

This does not seem to hold water.

It does not appear that it will be pulled back legislatively in the immediate future, and a reasonable guess at the outcome of Tuesday's election would lead one to think that the chances of it getting repealed during the President's current term are really really bad.

The likely outcome of Obama's choice is that DADT will remain for the forseeable future.

We are left with a couple of possible conclusions:

1. Obama thinks Democrats are going to win big Tuesday or that otherwise the bill will pass in the near future, and he is so confident of this that he is willing to risk allowing a pretty terrible social injustice that he claims to despise perpetuate itself on this gamble.

My take to this possibility: I would be surprised if he was dumb enough to think that it actually will pass legislatively.

2. He really doesn't care very much about DADT. Other things are more important to him, and he didn't need this bullshit before an election.

3. He's a pussy, and he's afraid to make decisions and exercise presidential power.

4. DADT keeps the military happy, and it keeps his religious constituents happy. He can keep up appearances as gay friendly by appearing to fight it (but in innefectual way that doesn't piss off the millitary or religious democrats.) He is more than happy to lobby a slow pitch over the plate so that the Republicans can smash it out of the park and take the credit and the blame for blocking the repeal of DADT. Not only does it keep everybody happy (except gays who wish to serve,) but it further ties gay people to the Democratic party.

It was inconvenient that the LCR's won this injunction, and it's a little thin to try to overturn it by claiming the import of legislative process, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, and it doesn't matter because in the end this will make Republicans look even worse to gays so it's not like they're not going to vote Democratic.



I go with #4.


I voted for Obama. Fiscally and politically I'm a conservative. I beleive in equality, a strong foreign policy, and MINIMAL government interference with public life. I am against most entitlements and social programs.

The Republicans weren't being very conservative in my view. And, I strongly disagreed with the social conservative movement within the Republican party.

So, while I disagreed with Obama on a lot of things, I'm socially progressive and believe in freedom and equality for all people. I thought Obama would at least represent this beleif of mine well. It was such a big part of his campaign. I voted for him in spite of all my other misgivings.

A lot of those misgivings proved false. He's Bush in every way except for this whole healthcare thing. That was the only misgiving that came true.

But socially he seems to be Bush as well. He's not doing what he said he'd do, and the excuses are fucking weak.

I've chosen 4. If you have another alternative please let me see it, I'd be interested. If you disagree with my premises, let me know why they are flawed.

Thanks,

Scylla
10-30-2010, 04:41 PM
Miller:

[quoteAnd lastly, to Scylla: you've stated that, as far as gay rights go, Republicans have the dubious moral highground of being true to their beliefs in sabotaging attempts at gay equality, which at least makes them honest. My question is, why do you assume they are honest? If Democrats have discovered that they can profit by pretending to be friendly to gays, is it not equally likely that Republicans have discovered that they can profit by pretending to hate gays?[/quote]

Huh!


That is an interesting thought. Frankly hadn't occurred to me. I guess I just figure bigotry is like leprosy, you wouldn't want to fake it.

Scylla
10-30-2010, 04:44 PM
I guess the issue that keeps me from agreeing with you on your point about the Democrats, overall, being worse on this is that while i'm sure i'd be more pissed off about someone doing something bad to me than someone who claimed to be my friend doing that same bad thing, I don't think i'd so easily draw the line like that when there's a differing amount of actual animosity behind it. I mean, betrayal is always nasty, but if it's a matter of betrayal due to overall indifference to the cause, i'm pretty sure as much as I might dislike one group for it i'm still going to dislike a group that actually has it out for me more. No-one likes being lied to, but if the thinking up at Democrat HQ (big generalisations here, but I hope you get what I mean) is "Eh, we can fuck over these people because there's more important things to us, and it's not like they have anywhere else to go", then as much as I would be displeased then i'm going to be more upset if at Republican HQ it's "We can fuck over these guys because they deserve to get fucked over". If one side is disproportionately gay-friendly and they're sharpening their back-stabbing knives, then they're bastards, but i'll take bastards who're acting out of prudence over bastards who're acting out of actual dislike.


It's a valid point. I think it's easier to work with a sincere enemy (putting aside Miller's objection for the moment,) than an insincere friend who may turn on you. You have the opportunity to reason with an enemy and possibly change their mind. It's hard to have a dialogue with somebody who's disingenuous though.

But, I concede it's a matter of personal preference which poison you find least distasteful.

Hamlet
10-30-2010, 04:55 PM
Some have argued that he needs to follow somebody to the mess hall or the whole system of checks and balances collapses or what have you, or that it is the President's responsibility to seek to uphold laws when they are overturned, or to challenge them, or that such a challenge is basically automatic and not reflective of Obama's beleifs, but somehow part of some clerical process.

But.... that turns out to be bullshit.You calling it "bullshit" doesn't make it so. But this has been explained over and over to you. I, knowing you, didn't expect it to change your mind, but I did hope, when you heard it from Bricker, Richard Parker, the legal commentators provided in this thread, and from Obama himself, you'd at least recognize that it is a tenable, and actually desirable to some, position for the President to take.

Instead, you simply call it bullshit. C'est la vie.

So, it was totally and completely his call, his choice. This is what I said 9 pages ago, and you and a whole bunch of others have been arguing with me about it.If that were the extent of what you said, we wouldn't have a problem. Pretty much everyone agreed on that.

But you didn't say just that. You went on to say that he a) had a duty to and b) that he didn't because he doesn't want DADT to stop (oh, and that "liberals hate gays") You also went on to make even more absurd comments I corrected you on, but replaying those would only make me smile and add nothing to the conversation at this point.

It was those comments, where you leave the realm of rational debate and pleasant disagreement, that got me involved.

If you have another alternative please let me see it, I'd be interested. I have. I've started giving it to you on page one, and I've repeated it over and over. Other posters, Obama himself, and linked legal commentators have done so too.

Why in heavens name would I think it would sink in now?

ElvisL1ves
10-30-2010, 05:13 PM
It's a valid point. I think it's easier to work with a sincere enemy (putting aside Miller's objection for the moment,) than an insincere friend who may turn on you. You have the opportunity to reason with an enemy and possibly change their mind.
You say one can reason with people you yourself describe as baby-eating lions? And call anyone who tries to "stupid"? How does that work, please? :p

Reminder:

You seem to be arguing that the guy who throws baby into the lion's cage really wants to protect it by putting it safe in a cage, and the blame the lion.

I'm saying that's stupid we all know what the lion is.

You're fooling no one but yourself.


There's the question of making a state lion cross for immoral papooses.It's "immortal porpoises", people. :mad:

elucidator
10-30-2010, 05:22 PM
Question for the legalists: if the Obama DOJ had not appealed, would anyone else have "standing" to do so? Could we then have confidence that this was the "last word", and could not be overturned?

Miller
10-30-2010, 05:25 PM
You calling it "bullshit" doesn't make it so. But this has been explained over and over to you. I, knowing you, didn't expect it to change your mind, but I did hope, when you heard it from Bricker, Richard Parker, the legal commentators provided in this thread, and from Obama himself, you'd at least recognize that it is a tenable, and actually desirable to some, position for the President to take.

I still haven't seen anyone attempt to reconcile this idea that Obama is acting out of some sense of duty to fight for laws that have been overturned with his willingness to not enforce laws that are still on the books. While you've made a good argument for the principle itself, I think there's still some distance to go before you've proved that this principle applies to Obama.

Richard Parker
10-30-2010, 05:42 PM
Question for the legalists: if the Obama DOJ had not appealed, would anyone else have "standing" to do so? Could we then have confidence that this was the "last word", and could not be overturned?

No one other than the party in the action can appeal. If the DOJ chose not to, that's the end of it.

I still haven't seen anyone attempt to reconcile this idea that Obama is acting out of some sense of duty to fight for laws that have been overturned with his willingness to not enforce laws that are still on the books. While you've made a good argument for the principle itself, I think there's still some distance to go before you've proved that this principle applies to Obama.

I think you're conflating two issues here, Miller. I'm not aware of any laws Obama is refusing to enforce. But there are many areas of law in which the law enforcers are intentionally granted a great degree of discretion in terms of priorities and what to do under individual circumstances. Thus, a President (or prosecutor, or individual Sheriff) may place greater or less emphasis on, say, rounding up illegal immigrants -- and they may do so without violating any duty to enforce the law.

The difference between prioritizing drug dealers over drug users (discretionary), and choosing not to appeal a district court ruling striking down a law (not discretionary), is the difference between managing a war (discretionary) and declaring it (not discretionary), or having an income tax (not discretionary) and choosing who to audit (discretionary). Or, more relevantly, the difference between having DADT (not discretionary) and placing authority for its use in the hands of five civilians instead of low-level military commanders (discretionary).

Hamlet
10-30-2010, 05:46 PM
I still haven't seen anyone attempt to reconcile this idea that Obama is acting out of some sense of duty to fight for laws that have been overturned with his willingness to not enforce laws that are still on the books. While you've made a good argument for the principle itself, I think there's still some distance to go before you've proved that this principle applies to Obama.Because not every law is the same. It's not an all or nothing proposition, where he must appeal/enforce every law or appeal/enforce none of the laws. Obama, like every President before him, has the discretion to treat some laws differently than others.

In this case, with the ruling in the LCR being only a district level ruling with no appeal and based on the Witt case, which has not been appealled, and the fact there are other rulings, by other district/appellate courts, that actually uphold DADT, it simply isn't as clear cut as other cases may be.

Now I'm not sure what laws Obama has refused to enforce or said he hypothetically might, so I can't compare them to appealling DADT. But I do know that he didn't refuse to enforce DADT when he took office, so I'm thinking he didn't think it was blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem is that this issue isn't black and white. It's not he hates gays vs. he must enforce/appeal everything. Like a majority of things in this world, it's not easy.

tnetennba
10-30-2010, 08:44 PM
But.... Let Obama do it, and..... Nothing.

Only if you define "nothing" to mean "nothing I've paid attention to." Because there was plenty of feedback.

Scylla
10-30-2010, 10:48 PM
You calling it "bullshit" doesn't make it so. But this has been explained over and over to you. I, knowing you, didn't expect it to change your mind, but I did hope, when you heard it from Bricker, Richard Parker, the legal commentators provided in this thread, and from Obama himself, you'd at least recognize that it is a tenable, and actually desirable to some, position for the President to take.

If you go and look over the original arguments, it was stated pretty strongly to me that Obama was basically compelled by the system of check and balances to challenge the decision else all of a democracy would collapse.


From Bricker, post 73:

"Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly."

in post 325

"The President's duty is to faithfully execute the laws. (Art II Sec 3) An Act of Congress is presumed constitutional. When a law is challenged, it's his job, through the Justice Department, to defend it, even through the appeals process. If this were not so, then the will of a unanimous Congress could be flouted by a single judge. There is no law requiring the President to defend laws, I grant you, but the general division of roles in our tripartite system of government demands it, and even though there's no explicit law requiring him to act, his duty exists because of our system, just like the guy who finds the mess hall by the system, not the entry in the Marine Guidebook."

You and Richard seemed to agree with this interpetation. But its not true.


Now, I agree that Obama has taken a tenable position.... politically, and if you wish DADT to stay in place.


Instead, you simply call it bullshit. C'est la vie.

If by "simply" you mean I provided cites than yes.

If that were the extent of what you said, we wouldn't have a problem. Pretty much everyone agreed on that.

But you didn't say just that. You went on to say that he a) had a duty to and


Whoa! Where did I say that? I reread the whole thread looking for me saying that Obama had a duty to do.... (something, it's not clear what you are referring to.) My argument has always been that it's his decision. His duty is to the Constitution, not laws.


b) that he didn't because he doesn't want DADT to stop (oh, and that "liberals hate gays") You also went on to make even more absurd comments I corrected you on, but replaying those would only make me smile and add nothing to the conversation at this point.

It's hard for to me imagine how you bragging about how great your nonspecific uncited arguments in the past were is furthering the conversation.

In fact, seeing as I've given you a set of givens in my previous and a series of interpretations and invited you to challenge them, and instead of doing so you are just bragging about how great your arguments were in the thread, I'm not really seeing how you are furthering anything but a masturbatory fantasy. Was it good for you?

It was those comments, where you leave the realm of rational debate and pleasant disagreement, that got me involved.

I have. I've started giving it to you on page one, and I've repeated it over and over. Other posters, Obama himself, and linked legal commentators have done so too.

Seriously. Stop whacking off. I'm sure you were brilliant on page 1. This is page 9.

Why in heavens name would I think it would sink in now?

I don't know. Maybe because what you are saying has not been consistent. You've endorsed Bricker's position that he had to challenge the decision, but you've also said he had a choice. You have said that it's a tenable position. You have also said it's a mistake.

I have just reread and you have done all those things. I don't think your arguments are as good as you fantasize.

You've been arguing, but it's not exactly clear what you are arguing. In an attempt to determine what it is you are arguing, I restated my assesment of the issue, and some possible interpretations for Obama's actions including the one I favor. I invited you to challenge my givens, or argue with my interpretations.


And.... I did it nicely.


You ignored the bulk of the content and instead started bitching, and bragging, and telling me how smart you were earlier in the thread.

Scylla
10-30-2010, 10:49 PM
Only if you define "nothing" to mean "nothing I've paid attention to." Because there was plenty of feedback.


Yes, but you'll notice that all happened after I started this thread.

elucidator
10-30-2010, 11:09 PM
...You and Richard seemed to agree with this interpetation. But its not true.....

I missed the part where you proved that it wasn't true. I got the part where you asserted it wasn't true, but not the part where you proved it.

Scylla
10-30-2010, 11:13 PM
I missed the part where you proved that it wasn't true. I got the part where you asserted it wasn't true, but not the part where you proved it.

Read the cite I provided from the Justice Department and the cite I provided from Newsweek that had constitutional scholars speak on the issue, and which cited precedent from cases in the past where laws were overturned and unchallenged by Presidents.



You must have missed that post.

elucidator
10-30-2010, 11:44 PM
...It does not appear that it will be pulled back legislatively in the immediate future, and a reasonable guess at the outcome of Tuesday's election would lead one to think that the chances of it getting repealed during the President's current term are really really bad.

The likely outcome of Obama's choice is that DADT will remain for the forseeable future....

And this, as well, rests upon shaky premises.

It is entirely likely that the Republicans well end up with more power after the coming elections. So what? They'd already been effectively blocking DADT repeal without any extra votes. But their public statements for their reasoning has fallen along two general lines: that it is disruptive in a time of war, and the soldiers don't want it.

Obama has finessed both lines of conflict. The survey I referenced before shows that the rank and file of service personnel have no problem with gay service members. And Obama offered the brass hats the opportunity to explore and prepare, they accepted, and now they are on board.

So the Pubbies only real plausible lines of argument are dismantled. Now, I don't really think for a minute that they believed any of that, but it was a plausible line until the were dismantled, now they are road kill.

The public is behind repealing DADT. The soldiers are on board, and the ranking officers. The only rationales remotely feasible that the Pubbies can use are gone. About all they have left is to stand baldly on religious or sexual bigotry. And, on that basis, vote against Our Heroes. denying them badly needed support and combat assistance.

Obama apparently thinks they will cave. I think he's probably right.

Plan B: The Pubbies go ahead any way, damn the torpedoes, full speed backward. Public backlash will be strong, unless they have managed to make Our Heroes less than sympathetic. The brass are on board, as well as the rank and file, and the Pubbies stink to high heaven, everybody hates their guts, save for the shriveling base of fanatics

So then he unleashes the power of the C in C, executive order, stop loss. Now, of course, the Pubbies can overturn that in the Congress, or they can try. Which stretches the fight out longer, and they look worse and worse and worse. Maybe even the Dems filibuster, wrapped in red white and blue bunting and sobbing over Our Heroes. Even if they pass it, he can veto.

But all of these scenarios end with the Pubbie going against a stacked deck. More likely, they will seek a face-saving rationale, which has been offered. "Well, now that we know that the officers are behind this and our soldiers are behind this, of course we are in favor of it, our only objection was Obama cramming this down the throats...."etc. etc.

So, Obama thinks they will cave. I think he is right.

elucidator
10-30-2010, 11:48 PM
Read the cite I provided from the Justice Department and the cite I provided from Newsweek that had constitutional scholars speak on the issue, and which cited precedent from cases in the past where laws were overturned and unchallenged by Presidents.



You must have missed that post.
The proceedings of Contsitutional scholars, they are most generally found in Newsweek?

And all Constitutional scholars are unanimous in their unalloyed support for the Scylla Thesis? No exceptions?

Scylla
10-31-2010, 07:02 AM
The proceedings of Contsitutional scholars, they are most generally found in Newsweek?

And all Constitutional scholars are unanimous in their unalloyed support for the Scylla Thesis? No exceptions?


You can be a really pissy bitch sometimes.

elucidator
10-31-2010, 10:28 AM
So, no, then?

Scylla
10-31-2010, 10:31 AM
So, no, then?


So read the post.

Hamlet
10-31-2010, 11:09 AM
Now, I agree that Obama has taken a tenable position.... politically, and if you wish DADT to stay in place.And, once again, that's where we differ. You continue to ignore the legal basis for his position, as well as ascribing a motive that has no support.

Whoa! Where did I say that? I reread the whole thread looking for me saying that Obama had a duty to do.... (something, it's not clear what you are referring to.) My argument has always been that it's his decision. His duty is to the Constitution, not laws.How could I possibly think that you said he had a duty not to appeal this case when you said: "As I said earlier, the President has a duty to uphold the Constitution, and, if, in his opinion a law is unconstitutional he can choose not to enforce it. In fact, that is his duty" What a bizarre reading I must have made to conclude you thought he had a duty when you said "that is his duty". Silly me.

But, at the very least, we have another point of agreement. Obama is not required to refuse to appeal the DADT case.

I don't know. Maybe because what you are saying has not been consistent. You've endorsed Bricker's position that he had to challenge the decision, but you've also said he had a choice. You have said that it's a tenable position. You have also said it's a mistake.Are those mutually exclusive in your world? Someone with whom you disagree with cannot possibly have a tenable position?

That explains so much.

You've been arguing, but it's not exactly clear what you are arguing.To you, it's not. Unfortunately, that's not my fault.

In an attempt to determine what it is you are arguing, I restated my assesment of the issue, and some possible interpretations for Obama's actions including the one I favor. I invited you to challenge my givens, or argue with my interpretations.

And.... I did it nicely.

You ignored the bulk of the content and instead started bitching, and bragging, and telling me how smart you were earlier in the thread.I guess the answer to my question "Why in heavens name would I think it would sink in now? " is "I really shouldn't."

You, as you are wont to do, gave 4 different bullshit interpretations that you made up, and ignored the ones that have been offered to you throughout the thread. Repeatedly. I didn't feel like having to repeat myself yet again, to play your little game.

I ascribed to you deliberate obtuseness rather than rampant stupidity. Perhaps that is my error.

Here are the other interpretations that you ignored. You may recognize them, because they've been posted in this thread repeatedly.

""Obama may see it as his sworn duty to uphold the laws of the United States. Since DADT was passed by Congress and signed by the President at the time, Obama may feel that it is his duty to defend that law, even if he personally disagrees with it."

"Seems to me the President and any Federal judge could nullify any law they wanted.

Judge: This law's unconstitutional.
President: Okay.

Done. Two-thirds of the goverment cancelling out the remaining third. I'm pretty sure the system wasn't set up for that."

"Obama has come out against DADT, but he wants congress to get rid of it."

"Correct. Obama has a duty to defend this, and he's acting correctly."

"Another reason for the DoJ to appeal court decisions such as this one is to make sure that the issue goes all the way to the Supreme Court."

"I think "don't ask, don't tell" is wrong. I think it doesn't serve our national security, which is why I want it overturned. I think that the best way to overturn it is for Congress to act. In theory, we should be able to get 60 votes out of the Senate. The House has already passed it. And I've gotten the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say that they think this policy needs to be overturned -- something that's unprecedented."

"I was very deliberate in working with the Pentagon so that I've got the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs being very clear about the need to end this policy. That is part of a strategy that I have been pursuing since I came into office. And my hope is that will culminate in getting this thing overturned before the end of the year.

Now, as usual, I need 60 votes. So I think that, Joe, the folks that you need to be having a really good conversation with -- and I had that conversation with them directly yesterday, but you may have more influence than I do -- is making sure that all those Log Cabin Republicans who helped to finance this lawsuit and who feel about this issue so passionately are working the handful of Republicans that we need to get this thing done."

"On the other hand, it would be highly unusual for the government to fail to appeal a district court decision striking down a federal statute. A failure to appeal this case will likely generate substantial criticism."

"The Administration can wait until after the elections to decide whether or not to appeal. It can take the position now that government lawyers are reviewing options. The Administration can then see where things stand after the November elections."

"olitics aside, there are at least two good legal reasons for the government to appeal. First, Judge Phillips’s decision, based heavily on trial testimony, reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires.

Second, the government has an interest in asserting deference to the military particularly in times of war. In rejecting the interests the government asserted in cohesion and readiness, Judge Phillips deemed President Obama’s public statements against DADT as an “admission” by the government that DADT serves no government interest. Judge Phillips also relied upon the military’s practices of discharge under DADT, in particular the smaller number of discharged gay and lesbian service members during wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as evidence that DADT serves no purpose. It is odd for a court to accept as evidence a statement by the Commander in Chief that an existing military policy is unwise and through a carefully coordinated process should be altered and at the same time dismiss as serving no interest the actual policies of the military that is overseen by the Commander in Chief. It is also odd that in a time of war and when military resources are stretched thin, the military’s decision not to implement fully a policy becomes proof that the policy has no point."

"The answer is one that perhaps only a lawyer could love: There is a long tradition that the Justice Department defends laws adopted by Congress and signed by a president, regardless of whether the president in office likes them."

Look familiar at all? Ringing any bells? They've only been offered to you 3 times now.

elucidator
10-31-2010, 11:31 AM
....reads very much like a ruling in an as-applied case rather than on a facial challenge. The government took the position in the case that on a facial challenge the only relevant evidence is the statute, legislative findings, and legislative history. (The government therefore called no witnesses.) Judge Phillips rejected this argument and issued a ruling based on a wide range of evidentiary materials. The government has an interest in pushing back on what defending a facial challenge requires....

Would someone explicate the concept of "facial challenge", or point to where it has been clarified? I'm hoping it means that persons of my preferred gender will be legally obligated to offer me a more positive response, despite being certifiably ugly. But I fear this is too optimistic, and may exceed the proper bounds of government regulation.

Bueller? Hamlet? Parker?

crowmanyclouds
10-31-2010, 12:36 PM
Would someone explicate the concept of "facial challenge" ... Bueller? ...Can I be Bueller?In the context of American jurisprudence, a facial challenge is a manner of challenging a statute in court, in which the plaintiff alleges that the statute is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and therefore void. It is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges that the statute may be, in part, unconstitutional, in redress of specific and particular injury. ...
... If a facial challenge is successful, a court will declare the statute in question facially invalid, which has the effect of striking it down entirely. This contrasts with a successful as-applied challenge, which will result in a court narrowing the circumstances in which the statute may constitutionally be applied without striking it down. In some cases ... a facial challenge has been rejected with either the court or concurring Justices intimating that the upheld statute might be vulnerable to an as-applied challenge. ...CITE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge)(If I am Bueller then why would I bother typing when I can just copy and paste?)

CMC fnord!

elucidator
10-31-2010, 01:39 PM
All well and good, but I'm concerned that some of our lesser minds might not grasp the relevance. Indeed, the esteemed Constitutional scholar Mr. Ben Adler makes no mention of it in his definitive work in that widely respected journal of constitutional law, Newsweek. But President Obama appears to think it of some importance, as quoted above, and I should like that broken down into smaller bits for our less well-informed.

Which, of course, I would do at once, if I were not so busy sewing these drapes into a fancy gown for the Pissy Bitches Ball....

Revenant Threshold
10-31-2010, 06:37 PM
It's a valid point. I think it's easier to work with a sincere enemy (putting aside Miller's objection for the moment,) than an insincere friend who may turn on you. You have the opportunity to reason with an enemy and possibly change their mind. It's hard to have a dialogue with somebody who's disingenuous though. That does make sense to me. At least with an outright foe you can have some level of certainty that any points they make or compromises they come to they'll stick to, in the sense that they're quite open about how much they don't like it. If I had the choice between making a deal with someone who's lied to me for years, and someone who merely hates me, as much as the second might be more difficult at least if we came to some end agreement i'd be able to trust it more. But I do think in this sort of situation it's not really a matter of insincerity vs. animosity - after all, people who dislike me for who I am might well consider it ok to lie to me, too. I mean, if you flip it around, I can at least trust that the first foe will be untrustworthy. I can assume it and plan ahead for that eventuality; I can look at their history and see what lies they might tell, I can bring up their lies in a discussion if I want them to stop. I can even refuse to discuss an issue with them at all, if my certainty of the uselessness of it is strong enough. In a sense, i'm forewarned about their duplicity and can plan for it, as unhappy a task as that is. With the hateful foe, i'm forewarned about their dislike, but they, too, might lie to me, and i'm less prepared for that. To the extent it's difficult to have a dialogue with somebody who's disingenuous, it's even harder still to have one with somebody who's disingenuous without your knowledge. But that's less a point about which poison is potentially worst and more which poison is easiest to deal with, so it's a bit off point.

Scylla
10-31-2010, 11:49 PM
I'm going to have to abandon this thread due to a death in the family.

Sorry.

Gyrate
11-01-2010, 05:30 AM
I'm going to have to abandon this thread due to a death in the family.

Sorry.Condolences to you and yours.

Buck Godot
11-01-2010, 01:29 PM
And so DADT sticks around for another four or five years, because doing the right thing by gays doesn't fit into the Democrat's political calculus.

Even if a DADT repeal fails in congress and Obama's justice department "defends" the law, there is still the chance that the higher court sustains the lower court decision. So all is not lost.

Overall I think it is in the gay's long term best interest to have this repealed/struck down the right way so as to indicate the rightness of their cause, rather than by fiat which can be discarded as a partisan ploy. But I recognize that as a straight man I have less at stake, and so can afford to be more patient.

Hamlet
11-01-2010, 06:17 PM
I'm going to have to abandon this thread due to a death in the family.

Sorry.Our best to you and yours.

elucidator
11-01-2010, 06:43 PM
The OP being unavailable, may I respectfully suggest that the thread be closed, as a gesture of unanimous sympathy?

mhendo
12-18-2010, 02:41 PM
I don't really give a shot how many democrats vote in favor of a bill that is doomed by foregone conclusion, just so that they can tick off "supports gay rights" box on their bios.

Because that's all they're doing. That's all they've been doing for years. They create these bills that have no chance whatsoever and then they take turns supporting them so that they look sympathetic to gay rights. Nothing ever happens except that they get to claim they're progressive on the issue. Big fucking deal.Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.

That's right, it's "doomed"; it has "no chance." "Nothing ever happens."
Here we have specific Republicans fighting for gay rights and specific democrats fighting against them. Democrats maybe being generally nicer in the past has no bearing. Breakdown of voting to invoke cloture on the DADT issue:

Yeas:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)


Nays:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)


Not voting:

Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)


I eagerly await the OP's explanation of why the 55 Democrats in the Yay column and the 33 Republicans in the Nay column mean nothing, and why the 6 Republicans in the Yay column and the 1 non-voting Democrat constitute conclusive evidence that liberals hate gays and conservatives are better on gay rights rights issues.There's also GOProud, on top of the Log Cabin Republican (figuratively, of course.).

All these Republican groups fighting for civil rights, and conservative judges declaring discriminatory laws unconstitutional, and all these Democratic doing their best to create uphold, and delay the repeal of these discriminatory laws....Yeah, those Democrats really sat on their hands this time, didn't they? I guess Obama might prove that he hates gays by refusing to sign it, though, right?

waterj2
12-18-2010, 03:02 PM
If you want to give the Republicans a little more credit, it's worth noting that Burr and Ensign, who voted "nay" on cloture, voted "yea" on the repeal itself.

mhendo
12-18-2010, 03:05 PM
If you want to give the Republicans a little more credit, it's worth noting that Burr and Ensign, who voted "nay" on cloture, voted "yea" on the repeal itself.I did notice that, although, in the spirit of the OP, it would seem fair to conclude that their vote on the repeal was simply a self-serving decision to pile onto the winning team. After all, why vote to prevent cloture if you don't hate gays?

Scylla
12-18-2010, 07:39 PM
Im very glad to have been wrong. I think it's a better day for our country because of this.

tnetennba
12-18-2010, 08:16 PM
My favorite line in this was something about Democrats giving into "special interest groups." As if Republicans NEVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER do ANYTHING for Special Interest groups. As if gay haters are not a special interest group.

Really Not All That Bright
12-20-2010, 11:40 AM
Different kind of special.

Vinyl Turnip
12-20-2010, 11:47 AM
And interest.

elucidator
12-20-2010, 03:00 PM
Im very glad to have been wrong. I think it's a better day for our country because of this.

Oh, so you think being classy will save you from being an asshole? Forget it, hoss. I been classy dozens of times, still an asshole. Get used to it.