Obama heckled by 'don't ask don't tell' opponents

[ruggerson]

Source: AP via Yahoo

LOS ANGELES – Opponents of the 'don't ask don't tell' policy on gays in the military interrupted President Barack Obama with heckling at a Los Angeles fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer.

The protesters shouted to ask Obama what he is going to do about the policy, which prohibits gays from serving openly in the military. The shouts grew so insistent that Obama responded.

The president said that he supports overturning "don't ask don't tell" and suggested the protesters should be yelling at the people who don't.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_hecklers

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Obama Also Supports A Public Option

Except that he doesn't.

12-dimensional chess is tough for me to understand. It might also be difficult to understand by those who remember Obama saying that repealing DADT would be the first thing he'd do as President.

[boppers]

7. Presidents aren't kings.

We have three branches of government.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

18. Oh, Puh-lease. Posting misleadingly about 3 branches is what is at the expense

of reason, logic or facts. Your post was also totally devoid of reason, logic or facts. Not only that, but equating hate with disagreement is about as childish as it gets on an adult political message board.

Jeebus, Democrats are all over the media right now, talking about disagreeing civilly and dispassionately and that's what you come up with? And then you have the nerve to complain about lack of logic, reason and facts in OTHER people's posts? I don't suppose you see the irony.

And here's a novel concept: Disagreeing with someone and calling their bluff doesn't have anything to do with hate.

I supported Obama for the nomination and the Presidency to the fullest extent of my physical and financial ability. Since I control my own hours, I usually stay away from polls until around 3 pm to give the 9-5ers a chance to vote. But, I was on line to vote for Obama a 6:15 am because I just could not wait. I did not even have coffee first. And, though I am very disappointed in a number of things, DADT among them, I always find him very likeable as a person. But, liking him is not why I worked and donated and voted for him.

Please see also, Reply 16.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

16. Epic lame fail.

The Constitution of the United States specifies that the President is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
Yes, Congress has some overlapping powers, but so the hell what?

Truman desegregated the military with an Executive Order, very unpopular at the time. Right after he was sworn in, before even walking up Pennsylvania Avenue, Carter signed an Executive Order granting amnesty to all draft dodgers, also very unpopular at the time.

Absolutely no Constitutional provision, express or implied, no statute and no case forbids any President from either starting or ending DADT. Bill Clinton got Congress to enact it into law for political cover, not bc it was necessary.

In addition, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 12305, which expressly empowers a President to suspend discharges in an emergency, aka "stop loss." (The CIC could have done that on his own, too, but the statute does exist.)

Using stop loss, Presidents have sent U.S. troops back and back after their tour of duty has ended. They are spread so thin and so exhausted they're going nuts, so we are certainly in a military emergency. Using 10 USC 12305, Obama could easily have signed an Executive Order on Day One, suspending all discharges based only on violation of DADT. The only reason Obama did not do that is because he did not want to do it. Nor did he want Congress to do it. So, let's not imply he begged an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress for this on Day One and they've been stubbornly refusing all along. If anything, he's kept it off their agenda.

And, here's a thought: if you're going to claim you have zero power to do anything about DADT, only Congress does, don't run for President/CIC on ending DADT. And, if you do run on ending DADT and then claim (falsely) that you have zero power to do that, at least ask Congress to end it. What did Obama do when he got into office, though? Handed it over to the Rethug neo theo military and babbled purposelessly about Congress.

BTW, what in blazes does the Judiciary have to do with ending DADT? TBMA. Three branches, my ass.

[boppers]

24. False dilemma.

The executive has a third of the power. Not zero power, or absolute power.

One third.

[t0dd]

46. What a moronic response.

Why don't you, I don't know, actually try responding to the message you replied to? No Elephants made quite a few points that you brazenly ignored.

Truman issued an executive order halting a discriminatory policy. Why can't Obama do the same? Stop with your worthless memorized argument and try justifying your reasoning.

[boppers]

47. Woo, name-calling! Yay.

Obama can't act like a king, and issue an Executive Order, because Congress has made a law.

Following so far?

Okay, see, the next step (if Obama tried to behave like a king) is that Obama would then confront the Supreme Court, on whether or not presidents can over-ride law.

Is this difficult to understand?

Truman could issue an executive order, because it changed federal *policy*, not federal *law*.

Those are different things.

One is policy, the other is law.

Would you like an explanation of the differences?

[Zhade]

53. Calling your response moronic isn't name-calling.

Saying you're a dim-bulb one-note anti-fact True Believer? Now THAT would be.

But I'm NOT saying that about you. It's only a random example, of course.

[No Elephants]

57. Yet another fail. See Reply # 55. Your thinking something, then posting it does not make it so.

Try backing up a post with some facts or law once in a while. It's a good discipline.

[boppers]

64. Have a URL:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

DADT isn't an opinion, or an executive policy, it's federal law.

[No Elephants]

56. Another fail. Government doesn't get divided in thirds, like cake batter. It's not that simple.

And nothing in my post was false.

[boppers]

70. Okay, maybe you haven't studied fallacies in logic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

In this case, the "set up" is that either Obama can do everything to change DADT, or nothing. Since everything hasn't been done, there's a logically false claim that nothing has been done. It's basically a failed kind of "all or nothing" mindset that only sees black and white in the world, no grey.

[marshall]

45. DADT and the ban on gays in the military are two different things

Obama can't repeal DADT, but he can issue an executive order lifting the ban on gays in the military. That is a policy and is not law. Obama is commander in chief of the military. It would be a very simple matter to do it.

[No Elephants]

55. He can repeal DADT and he can also suspend DADT discharges.

As my post says, the powers of the President and Congress over the military overlap. It is only tradition, not law, that the President does not act in a military matter once Congress has spoken on it. And, if he repealed DADT, what exactly would Congress do about it?

If he wants to end the ban on gays in the military, even better. I don't much care what route is used, as long as gay people can serve without lying or hiding.

[boppers]

67. Presidents don't get to repeal laws willy-nilly.

The legislative branch isn't subservient to the executive branch.

[Starry Messenger]

75. I guess someone forgot to tell the President that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8198344

Looks like the legislative branch would say otherwise.

[Zhade]

52. Neither of the other two branches made him lie about it, though.

Neither forced him to say he never ran on a public option when video evidence proves he most assuredly did.

[No Elephants]

58. Neither of the other two branches made him lie about being unable to do anything about gays in the

military, either.

[boppers]

69. So, since he has done something...

Who is the liar?

[boppers]

68. LOL, this canard again?

You know the difference between getting married *on the basis* of having children, and getting married and *hoping* to have children?

Obama never said "I will veto any Health Bill that doesn't have a public option" (or similar language), and you're quite welcome to try and find video evidence.

I will await your non-existent proof.

[slay]

14. Burn!

Seriously, nice burn. Obama fucked us on that, and he is definitely not making much headway with DADT. At this rate I'll be dead before anything changes. Argh.

[ClarkUSA]

50. "Obama saying that repealing DADT would be the first thing he'd do as President"?? Prove it. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

2. They were. n/t

[boppers]

8. FTA:

"Obama has called on Congress to lift the ban, and military officials are examining how to do that."

[rpannier]

12. Better answer than your post #7

This should remind people that he is making an effort

DADT was not an executive order, it was passed by congress

He is trying to get it changed and the military and some members of congress are trying to get it done

[No Elephants]

20. Please see Reply 16.

[boppers]

25. "overwhelmingly Democratic Congress" in #16

riiiiight.

How are you defining "overwhelmingly"?

How would you define it in DADT terms?

Is Congress "overwhelmingly" in favor, with Obama threatening a veto?

[No Elephants]

60. Um, what?

How would I define a Congress that is overwhelmingly Democratic?
In any number of ways, including the composition of Congress on Inauguaration Day, 2009.

I have no idea what "How would you define "overwhelmingly" (Democratic) in DADT terms" means.

Your question about Congress and a Veto totally misses the point of my other posts on this thread.

You have framed this incorrectly from the beginning--that Obama is powerless over both the issue and over Congress--and over Gates, for that matter. You have framed it that way because Obama has. And he has done so because it gives him political cover, not because it is the legal or practical reality of the matter.

The legal reality is stated in my repllies to your posts upthread, in Reply 45 and in Reply 55. So far, you have refuted none of those posts. You simply keep, in one way or another, reverting to your original position, which is patently wrong as a legal matter, as a factual matter and as a practical matter.

[boppers]

66. If an overwhelmingly democratic congress wanted it, it could survive a veto.

I don't think Obama is powerless, but I keep pointing out that Presidents are not above the law.

Very simple.

I even posted a URL to the law. Perhaps it was in response to another, so you didn't see/notice it, here's the law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

Presidents don't get elected and then just decide that "they are not crooks". They *all* have to follow the law.

edit:typo

[rpannier]

28. Just did

1. You are correct that Truman did desegregate the forces
2. The President can return people to active duty

But, I am unaware of there being a law passed by Congress that expressly prevented the troops from being desegregated. As far as I can tell the segregation was a de facto segregation
The closest thing I can find to a US Government 'law' authorizing (or requiring) segregation was the order of the segregation of the Civil Service in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson. But that was order by the President, not Congress. So it would have been within Truman's power to change Wilson's order.

To repeal DADT, as far as I can tell and my Congressman can tell, is if Congress authorizes it

[No Elephants]

59. Please see Reply 45 and 55.

Besides, what is the objective here? To allow gays to serve without being closeted or lying, or to repeal DADT? Why are we nitpicking the exact method?

Point is, Obama could have, on Day One, done something that would have allowed gays to serve openly and he not only chose not to do something, but he claimed only Congress could do anything. Not only that, but he did act--he took an action that ensured delay, namely referring it to Gates.

[boppers]

72. The law refers it to SecDef, not Obama

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/654.html

[Starry Messenger]

32. And?

He says a lot of things. :shrug:

President Obama: I think one of the options should be a public insurance option. (Loud cheers) Let me clear. It would only be an option, nobody would be forced to choose it. No one with insurance affected by it. But what it would do is provide more choice and more competition. It would keep pressure on private insurers to keep the policies affordable, to treat their customers better. I mean think about it. It's the same way the public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students. That doesn't inhibit private colleges and universities from thriving out there. The same should be true on the health care front. Minnesota I have said I'm open to different ideas on how to set this up we're going to set this up but I'm not going to back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage we're going to provide you a choice.

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/president-obama-strongly-supports-publi


Doesn't mean the citizens affected have to believe it.

[boppers]

71. Blame Obama for Congress.

Uhm, wow.

You know they aren't the same thing, right?

[Starry Messenger]

74. Um wow.

You posted a quote of him saying something. So did I. Let me know if you need smaller words and pictures dear.

[boppers]

76. A president says something and MAGIC happens!

Woo-hoo!

If only we knew it was so simple!

Federal law can be ignored, or over-ridden, with a speech!

:sarcasm:

(Nixon would have liked that)

[Starry Messenger]

77. Well, he just instructed the legislature to delay repealing DADT.

:shrug: Was that magic?

[No Elephants]

19. Perfect reply!

[harry_pothead]

3. They should have.

I didn't campaign for Obama for nothing.

[kas125]

4. Good! He needs to be reminded that he promised to do it.

Constantly!!

[elleng]

5. and repugs are just grinning their asses off.

GET IT TOGETHER, folks. They do 'divide and conquer' big time, in case some haven't noticed it.

'Boxer is seeking a fourth term and has won big in the past in Democratic-friendly California. But she's facing a more difficult political environment this time around because of the shaky economy.'

[Bluebear]

6. 'GET IT TOGETHER, folks.' - - translation QUIET ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS!

No.

[Chulanowa]

10. Your translator is broken

It's apparently telling you what you want to hear, rather than what is actually said.

Did you buy it from someone in the gun forum?

[elleng]

35. Got it, Chulan!

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

22. I agree, except that no one, hetero or GLBT, should shut up about this.

ESPECIALLY no Democrat.

This is a human rights issue. Yes, no one suffers from this particular issue to the degree that members of the GLBT community do. Not even close. But human rights issues affect all of us, directly or indirectly, to one degree or another. In any event, NONE of us should shut up about this, let alone try to shut others up.

[elleng]

36. You are correct that no one should be 'shut up,'

and it is an important human rights issue.

My point is that we must choose our methods and venues to best achieve our goals and not at the same time have adverse effects elsewhere.

[No Elephants]

61. Sorry, I'd have to have something more specific.

Which methods and venues for protest would you suggest that would have no adverse effects elsewhere? One that cannot possibly embarrass anyone and therefore is highly unlikely to have any impact?

We have a gay community that has been discriminated against since time immemorial. Bill Clinton promised the gay community things when he campaigned in 1991-1992, almost twenty years ago. Obama promised things when he campaigned in 2007-2008. How long after they don't get what they were promised are they supposed to continue voting Demnocratic, then sit down and shut up and make sure they do no harm to the Democratic Party?

Hundreds of DADT discharges have occurred since Obama's inauguration alone. If Obama and/or Congress did the right thing last year, no one would be protesting now.

Something about reaping what you sow comes to mind.

Did MLK, Jr. choose the least embarrassing, least damaging venues he could when he sought to end another kind of Jim Crow law? Did anyone suggest he should?

[elleng]

34. Meaning, understand the way the system works,

and do your best to encourage it to do what you want.

[No Elephants]

21. Democrat versus Republican is not all that matters in life, or even in the U.S.

This is a human rights issue. If a Democratic President couldn't find it with him to deal with his campaign promise, except slowly, clumsily and disingenuously, he deserves criticism from any human rights advocate.


Hundreds of careers have been ruined since Obama took office along, maybe some lives along with them. And our national security is not at its best, either.

And for what? Because someone saw someone on line at the local Wal-Mart holding hands? Because some member of the military felt that stuff she had to say about honor and integrity should actually mean not lying?

Please see also Reply ##s 16 and 22.

As far as Republicans, if Obama had signed an executive order on Day One, this would be a non-issue now.

From the OP: "The military has discharged some 13,000 men and women since DADT was enacted 16 years ago, an estimated 1,000 of which worked in critical occupations such as interpreters and engineers. An estimated 30,000 more men and women have left the service voluntarily because of the policy."

[QC]

31. So which legal rights are you denied?

You know, there is something especially grotesque about people with all their rights telling those less privileged to sit down and shut up.

[elleng]

38. Whats grotesque, unfortunately, is people calling others names

for no reason whatsoever except to make them feel bad. The system sucks, and we all have to do our best to improve it. We did so by electing a pragmatic humanist who is more likely to achieve our goals than any one on the horizon, we should recognize and appreciate it, and assist him whenever possible.

[QC]

39. You didn't answer the question. n/t

[elleng]

40. Non responsive to my point.

[QC]

41. But very apropos to my point, which is that people with all the rights and privileges

of citizens should not tell those deprived of such rights and privileges to sit down and shut up and respect their betters.

[elleng]

42. I agree.

That is not the case here, however.

[Starry Messenger]

43. What are you talking about?

Who got called names to make them feel bad? Wait, why do I suddenly feel like I'm talking to a nursery school child?

[elleng]

48. Take this to your nursery school, child.

We all have to do our best to improve the system. We did so by electing a pragmatic humanist who is more likely to achieve our goals than any one on the horizon, we should recognize and appreciate it, and assist him whenever possible.

[Starry Messenger]

49. Thanks for not answering the question.

:thumbsup: The President is an expedient politician, like any other. His snarky talk to the GBLT community in CA puts his status as "humanist" in serious doubt. That's a big voting demographic in this traditionally blue state. Maybe the "pragmatist" better start doing the math.

[elleng]

54. I sincerely hope the big demographic recognizes

where its, and all of our, best interests are, which is what my comments at this thread have been about, more specifically, helping Boxer.

[EFerrari]

63. By avoiding this issue and the small matter of Honduras

Boxer is cutting her own throat.

I seriously don't know what is going on with her.

[Book Lover]

65. deleted on edit

edited away because what's the point ...

[whatacountry09]

11. See...

And this is when I go back to thinking that there are sooooooo many things that he really and truly wanted to change... BUT... 'they' won't let him.

[boppers]

23. 'they' being Congress, and the Supreme Court.

...not to mention the existing executive staff.

[No Elephants]

26. Baloney.

[boppers]

27. Eruca sativa.

[whatacountry09]

30. no -

I'm not really sure who 'they' are, but I'm thinking the 'elite' that are above Obama. In other words... things Obama wanted to or thought he could change as President - I just think there are higher authorities than him that are telling him NO to certain things. And... I just think that Obama had no idea it would be that way going into this presidency.

[Incitatus]

13. There were a number of Arabic translators kicked out for being gay

Do the protesters care more about keeping gay people out of the military than preventing terrorist attacks?



Yes, the answer is clear.

[GodlessBiker]

15. Huh? The protestors want to end DADT and let gay soldiers serve openly.

[Incitatus]

17. My fault. I am talking about those against service for gay people/

[JNelson6563]

33. Yeah! Go after those who agree with you!

Brilliant.

Oy.

[Bluebear]

37. Agreeing is not enough but thanks.

[QC]

44. But he's said such nice things about us! n/t

[boppers]

73. Rahm had a phrase for such things.

It rhymes with "clucking petarded"

I think of chickens blowing up the flock for their own gain.

[ClarkUSA]

51. Nice to see a President respond with respect to hecklers as a rule, no matter the issue.

It's too bad President Obama doesn't have a magic wand to wave to force Congress to repeal Bill Clinton's fucked-up legislation as fast as activists would like.

[EFerrari]

62. I'm so happy to see these young people demanding their civil rights.

And it's too bad that they have to be marginalized as "activists" as if being active on your own behalf or on behalf of your community is a bad thing. Next thing you know, they'll be called "community organizers".