You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #53: With all due respect, you and a whole lot of others, need to read these things called history books [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-10-10 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
53. With all due respect, you and a whole lot of others, need to read these things called history books
Clinton couldn't end the prohibition on gays any more than Obama could by executive order. Sodomy was then, and may still be now (depending on Lawerence v Texas) against the UCMJ. Clinton tried to do so, and the Congress made it crystal clear that there was no way that law would be changed and that instead they would outright ban gays. Much of his opposition came from Democrats as well as Republicans. DADT was added to the budget that year and passed by Congress to be signed by the President. Had that not happened the default would have been back to the witch hunts (to understand what those were like read Conduct Unbecoming). Since we weren't at war we couldn't use stop loss.

To compare the pardon power of the President, which is absolute and utterly unfettered by any control at all, to the power of executive orders shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the limits of the power of a President. Something I doubt Carter really did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Isn't "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Bill Clinton's fault? dumpdabaggers  May-09-10 10:58 PM   #0 
  - Look,  FrenchieCat   May-09-10 11:02 PM   #1 
  - YES, and so is DOMA  bluestateguy   May-09-10 11:02 PM   #2 
  - I liked and voted for Clinton twice but I did NOT like DADT or DOMA.  CTyankee   May-10-10 03:14 PM   #54 
  - Along with NAFTA, media de-regulation and his cruel welfare "reforms".  Webster Green   May-09-10 11:04 PM   #3 
  - yep  Whisp   May-10-10 01:56 AM   #26 
  - In retrospect, it was a very bad decision  HughMoran   May-09-10 11:06 PM   #4 
  - Sure - Colin Powell would have said "You betcha".  DURHAM D   May-09-10 11:06 PM   #5 
  - Powell would have had no choice had Clinton signed an executive order.  dumpdabaggers   May-09-10 11:44 PM   #11 
  - At the time it was an improvement on the status quo -- kicking gay people out.  pnwmom   May-09-10 11:10 PM   #6 
  - They just got kicked out if they were lucky.  DURHAM D   May-09-10 11:18 PM   #8 
     - I think people forget how different things were 20 years ago. n/t  pnwmom   May-10-10 12:50 AM   #19 
  - GlassSteagall Act, as long a we're listing his accomplishments. nt  gateley   May-09-10 11:14 PM   #7 
  - Sometimes i wonder of Obama wants to lose the Congress.  dumpdabaggers   May-09-10 11:40 PM   #9 
     - You ignore that Obama with the Congress he has actually had many successes  karynnj   May-10-10 08:08 AM   #30 
  - Did you follow the story closely at the time?  QC   May-09-10 11:43 PM   #10 
  - He has admitted as much. He has said DADT was one of his biggest regrets, but he had hardly any  Hissyspit   May-09-10 11:46 PM   #12 
  - Then, as now, the Left was not uniformly pro-gay.  QC   May-09-10 11:52 PM   #13 
  - Rwanda too!  FrenchieCat   May-09-10 11:54 PM   #14 
  - columbine  Whisp   May-10-10 02:00 AM   #27 
  - They fear the political consequences.  dumpdabaggers   May-09-10 11:58 PM   #16 
  - Let me be clear, I was for allowing gays to serve in 1993  Hissyspit   May-10-10 12:29 AM   #17 
  - Yes, and when he compromised right out of the gate like that,  QC   May-10-10 12:34 AM   #18 
  - The left was a lot less pro-gay 20 years ago than now. It's not really fair to judge Clinton  pnwmom   May-10-10 12:52 AM   #20 
     - Yes, that's pretty much what I said.  QC   May-10-10 12:56 AM   #21 
        - We do -- but I actually meant to reply to the same post you did.  pnwmom   May-10-10 01:27 AM   #23 
  - Was it at Netroots Nation 2009 that you heard this?  TheWraith   May-10-10 01:31 AM   #25 
     - Yes.  Hissyspit   May-10-10 03:05 AM   #28 
  - I do remember. It was terrible.  dumpdabaggers   May-09-10 11:55 PM   #15 
  - The GOP/conservadems had veto proof majorities to codify the ban on gays in the military into law  Hippo_Tron   May-10-10 01:18 AM   #22 
  - Not exactly.  TheWraith   May-10-10 01:29 AM   #24 
  - No, that was Sam Nunn's fault.  jobycom   May-10-10 03:27 AM   #29 
  - Why bother?  Beacool   May-10-10 11:23 AM   #32 
  - Because there are DUers who haven't heard the true story yet.  jobycom   May-10-10 11:47 AM   #33 
  - It was more of a rhetorical question?  Beacool   May-10-10 01:14 PM   #39 
     - I know, but one of my rhetorical tactics is to answer rhetorical questions.  jobycom   May-10-10 01:35 PM   #47 
  - I remember all of this, especially with Nunn, and I was only 17 in 1993!  Jennicut   May-10-10 01:20 PM   #44 
     - Yep, I remember it too.  Beacool   May-11-10 10:46 AM   #57 
  - Thank you, jobycom.  jesus_of_suburbia   May-11-10 11:13 AM   #58 
  - Sure was "on his watch" and he put his pen to it and DOMA -  lynne   May-10-10 10:05 AM   #31 
  - From what I understand it doesn't take an act of congress. Obama can repeal this if he wanted to  no limit   May-10-10 11:53 AM   #34 
  - Obama cannot repeal the law of the land, only congress can do this......  FrenchieCat   May-10-10 12:18 PM   #35 
     - I meant repeal the policy. He can do that and it would be just as good as an act of congress  no limit   May-10-10 12:20 PM   #36 
        - No, he can reverse a law via an executive order,  FrenchieCat   May-10-10 01:09 PM   #37 
        - In effect his executive order would allow openly gay people in the military  no limit   May-10-10 01:13 PM   #38 
           - The point of reversing a bad law is exactly to reverse a bad law.....  FrenchieCat   May-10-10 01:18 PM   #42 
              - I dont believe that for a second  no limit   May-10-10 01:22 PM   #45 
                 - What you believe doesn't really count.....  FrenchieCat   May-10-10 01:46 PM   #49 
                    - we'll see. I dont think it will get done this year  no limit   May-10-10 01:48 PM   #52 
        - It would stand only until a Republican got back in (unless they were against DADT).  Jennicut   May-10-10 01:16 PM   #40 
           - Exactly as I said. Sign the executive order now while you get congress to act  no limit   May-10-10 01:23 PM   #46 
              - Some conservadems may balk at doing that and we need their votes.  Jennicut   May-10-10 01:36 PM   #48 
                 - Then we wont get votes either way  no limit   May-10-10 01:48 PM   #50 
  - I think it was Colin Powell's fault  LisaM   May-10-10 01:17 PM   #41 
  - But I think this is why Obama is taking the military route to repeal the law......  FrenchieCat   May-10-10 01:19 PM   #43 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   May-10-10 01:48 PM   #51 
  - With all due respect, you and a whole lot of others, need to read these things called history books  dsc   May-10-10 02:49 PM   #53 
  - Absolutely yes.  Greyhound   May-10-10 04:48 PM   #55 
  - Well, that's his signature on it. nt  AtomicKitten   May-10-10 04:59 PM   #56 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC