This is why some democrats are frustrated with Obama

[bigdarryl]

WTF!!!! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/james-amos-obamas-pick-to_n_733134.html

[ProSense]

1. Who cares what he thinks?

He doesn't have a friggin vote. Gates supports it.

[vaberella]

7. That's what I've been saying. These people are screaming faux rage.

Ugh, just not enough focus on the real stuff they want to waste energy on shit that doesn't matter.

[katandmoon]

12. It's not faux. It's for real. But keep trying to minimize it. You and Obama both minimize it at his

peril of losing ever more votes if he actually runs again in 2012.

[ProSense]

13. Six weeks before the election, there are two types of people

those making a case against Democrats and those who are not.

The opinion of a nominee, specifically a General, is completely irrelevant.

[PVnRT]

45. Care to tell us what else is irrelevant?

I don't get the memos anymore telling me what I am supposed to and not supposed to care about.

[Skittles]

42. shit that doesn't matter?

what the fuck is wrong with you????

[jaxx]

2. He'll follow orders.

Why would people be frustrated with Obama when it's the Nopers who voted down even letting the bill be debated? Put the grief where it belongs...and it's not the Obama administration.

[emulatorloo]

3. It is infuriating.

McCain won his primary, why is he still teabagging?

[Drunken Irishman]

6. McCain has been teabagging since he lost the election in 2008.

It's like losing to Obama killed any of the good that was left in his aged, rotting piece of shit cancer raped corpse.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

29. There's still good in him. I can feel it.

NOT!!!!!! Far from exemplifying his rather gracious and honorable-sounding concession speech (after an extremely ugly GE featuring hate-filled rallies with "proto-teabaggers" inspired by Sarah Palin), he seems to have become a bitter old man who will forever be angry and bitter about his defeat in that election by Obama. Of course, the last time somebody questioned him about it, he basically said that his attitude towards Obama since the election has NOTHING to do with HIM, of course. It's all Obama's fault- for being too "extreme"- according to him.

Uh-huh, John.
:eyes: :puke:

[LiberalFighter]

41. And if he doesn't follow the C-i-C's orders than we hound the hell out of the guy.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[tk2kewl]

9. If that is the case then the right answer is simply: "My opinion is not relevant."

n/t

[JuniperLea]

17. Opinion become irrelevant when it's so far out in left field...

There are plenty of legitimate things to be pissed at Obama for... this particular issue is bullshit and it dilutes the real issues.

[vaberella]

5. What does it matter?!

Do you think everyone in the military top agrees with repealing DADT?! No. Do you think everyone in the senate agrees with repealing DADT?! Obviously not. He's there to follow orders and that is all. They're not asking his opinion on things. You're trying to raise faux outrage when that has nothing to do with anything.

[ampad]

31. They behaved as if the

They are behaving as if the guy's statement would of changed the outcome. No it would not of changed a darn thing. When have the republicans ever done the right thing during this administration? They are bound and determined not to do the right thing they have so much as told us that since day one. The pope could of came out and said he thought DADT is a sin and they still would of blocked and or voted against it. The sheer number of GOP scum that blocked the vote is all we need to know about who is at fault here. It is right there in black and white for all to see.

[Skittles]

43. do you not fucking get it???

if you're trying to get something accomplished, it would be nice to have people around WHO AGREE WITH YOUR GOAL. Doesn't matter WHAT they can or cannot do but it makes a statement when you appoint people who are on record as BEING AGAINST FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

[katandmoon]

8. But but but -- Obama said at the very last minute before the vote today he's for repealing DADT!!!!

What an empty gesture that was. By then Obama knew the repeal wouldn't pass. And he had this anti-repeal appointment up his sleeve.

Actions certainly do speak louder than words.

[vaberella]

15. what is your deal!? Why does a clown who has no power on this issue matter?! n/t

[katandmoon]

19. Why does Obama appointing an anti-DADT repealer to head the Marines NOT matter to you?

Don't bother to answer - just a rhetorical question.

[vaberella]

21. Answered in post 18 and not to mention this guy can be fired.

Meaning...he's hired for one reason--not his person BS which matters not when we want this taken care of. I care entirely on the Senate and the Pentagon (who's looking at the ENTIRE military).

[JuniperLea]

20. That's utter bogus bullshit...

He's always been for repeal... you must have stopped listening between his voicing his personal opinion and voicing his duty and intention. So fucking typical

[Raine1967]

27. Bullshit.

IT's total Bullshit what you are saying. Why in another thread you said it was a friday night news dump.

You don;t like the guy -- fine. I think we all get it, but maybe you could deal with facts and truth. Truth like who actually blocked the Defense bill -- the GOP.

But don't let that stop you from spewing crap.

[Phx_Dem]

10. Who cares what he thinks! He doesn't get a vote. n/t

[vaberella]

16. That's what I don't get either. n/t

[DemocraticPilgrim]

11. Folks opposed Bob Gates with gusto but he's no Rumsfeld it's not always as it first looks

All I'm saying is can we trust in his intelligence a little bt it's a right wing congress when you look at it, he does what works.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. It is just more of the same. At this point, to be expected.

I note that the straight ardent supporters are not frustrated with this choice, but again, that's to be expected at this point. What frustrates them is active citizens speaking out in support of the gay community. That bothers them. More of the same.

[vaberella]

18. Obama is going on this guys combat record not his personal opinions.

He keeps his mouth shut and follows the orders. It doesn't say on the guys papers--Oh I am against the repeal of DADT. Oh, I like popcorn. Oh my favorite tv show is JAG. That doesn't come up to the hiring process. He's worthless when it comes down to the vote to repeal DADT and Obama pushed against any back talk when he wanted DADT to go through the process. Gates was against the Senate going forward and Obama supported the Senate going forward. This guy is not the commander and chief and for you to insinuate that Obama is just like Bush by this is ridiculous. The man is based entirely on his combat record---end of story.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Um, he keeps his mouth shut?

Today we are talking about what he said about a vote about to take place. The subject at hand is 'he did not keep his mouth shut'.
I did not insinuate that Obama is just like Bush. That is purely your imagination. I ask you, how would you feel if your company hired a racist to be your boss, and said, well, he answers to us, so it does not matter? Do you really think that people can compartmentalize their bigotry? If they can, why are there successful discrimination lawsuits in the military?
If the opinions of military brass are 'worthless' why are we spending so much time doing surveys and studies and asking for worthless opinions?
It did not pass, of course. So it is a moot discussion. As usual. Some are more equal than others. Some are praised for their silence, even as they speak, others are told to be silent, simply for speaking.

[vaberella]

24. Basically he doesn't vote. Hence his mouth piece means noting to me.

I'm tired of people derailing where the issue lies. The issue lies with the Conservatives show kicked us in the teeth. They kicked the LGBT community in the teeth and Immigrants. Yet, we're focused on a guy who doesn't add much to the debate because the debate goes on with or without him. I'm sure Obama probably didn't ask him for his input on DADT when he was given the job. Only his record as a military officer was what was looked. A media person asks him a question and he responds with his own personal opinion....doesn't change what's going on. WE need to focus.

Now as to your statement about not insinuating...you clearly stated in your post "more of the same" that's only used when people are stating that Obama is like Bush and pushing Bush's ideology. I don't see why would say "more of the same."

I would be upset if my company hired a racist to be my boss. However, I doubt my company would know that the guy was a racist until after the fact---ie if he said something or did something out of line. If he did or said someing out of line before the job that's something else----but if he's hired post the job---I don't see why I would be upset.

Actually I don't think McCain is a bigot. I realize that McCain says what he says, but I don't think he's a bigot. There are a lot of people opposed to DADT being repealed who aren't bigots. By your statement because Clinton passed the bill on DADT then he must therefore be a bigot. I don't think I'm going that way. He has his own issues as to why he's against repealing DADT. I don't how far they go---nor do I make any claims to know. All I know is that he's against the repealing of DADT and that means nothing. You don't know like the next person how deep his feelings go on the matter and if he's really a bigot. Let's refrain on this.

As for the repubs on this, excluding let's say McCain most of them have definitely exhibited very homophobic statements and I exclude McCain because he's just a hypocritical liar on the issue and has shown in the past he's far beyond this and due to the rise of the tea party freaks he's turned into something else.

Secondly, I never said the military brass as a whole are worthless, his views are going to be one of many. The Pentagon is looking at ALL of the military not just one person.

Update: I totally feel this issue is totally superseding the real issue at hand and I'm not wasting much time on this when I have Republicans I want taken out of office. I figured we'd see more livid posts and actionary posts to get this ting moving in the senate...instead we are stuck on this and moving indignation towards Obama for some reason or another---because that's how the post began. I'm going back to the issue at hand in the Senate and getting ready to make phone calls, send money and get things moving because I'm tired of this. We could have had something done today and we had the chance thrown in our face and now people are wasting time on something that means nothing really since this is still in the works. It was there before this guy became military head and it will stay that way.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

28. Funnily enough Jim Webb voted for this.

He didn't vote against it. Only Lincoln in the party did. Even Nelson voted for this. Lincoln was the only one who didn't stand by the party and against the right wing goons.

[LiberalAndProud]

44. I'll give you this. I wish he had held his peace.

Do you believe that there should be a DADT litmus test? The guy says if Congress passes a law, he will implement the policy. He has a personal (stupid and wrong-headed) bias. And he voiced it out loud. I guess he has the right to express his opinion, even if it bespeaks his homophobic views. But if he is in every other way the best candidate for the position, should he be blacklisted?

Since he doesn't make policy, I would argue that his opinion on the matter is not of paramount interest, unless and until he fails to implement the policy after it is changed. I still believe DADT will be repealed. If he fails to fulfill his obligations after that, he should be subject to Court Martial -- or whatever the marine equivalent.

[stray cat]

23. No one is not frustrated with something - and people will still be frustrated with the GOP

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Some people lose their careers over this issue.

This is about them, and our frustration is not comparable. Some of us of course share with them the frustration of being legally discriminated against in housing and employment, and being denied the same rights our neighbors have, and that frustration is not comparable to most others either.
This is not about November. My Senators voted with me. They advocated early and well.

[ampad]

30. Bogus

Totally bogus. This man's point of view means squat. He was hired based on his military and combat career. He was not hired on is point of view of DADT because his point of view is moot. It is moot because he has no vote and it is moot because his POV does not matter. Three Dems voted against DADT and the majority of republicans voted against it. Do you mean to tell me that the repubs would of changed their opinion if this guy stated that he was for DADT being repealed? I think not. They would of voted against it no matter what because they are scum. It is evident in the fact that they also voted against funding the military when they voted no on DADT. Do you expect more from Republicans? Do you think they would of done the right thing if this guy stated the opposite? If so you have more faith in them than most here and that is truly sad.

You obviously do not like the president oh well. I think most would have more respect for you if you would just come out and say that no matter what Obama accomplished (good or bad) you will not be satisfied. At least it would be the freaking truth for once. At least you can stop it with the fake outrage.

[dsc]

32. To those who find this perfectly acceptable

would it be OK for him to have hired a good soldier who happened to believe women shouldn't be in the military, or blacks? The man is a bigot and has no business working for a Democratic administration. He wouldn't be if he were as anti black or anti woman as he apparently is anti gay.

[denimgirly]

33. +1,000 -- But yet No Matter How much Obama Goes Against his Promises DU will support him

It seems no matter how much OBama gives away to the right or changes his tune there will always be many on DU who will give him a pass..And they wonder why Obama coninues to appease the right...people, you're encoraging him to ignore the Left's issues and look to special interests...why not voice anger at Obama and make him listen

[jaxx]

34. Obama didn't get to vote today in the senate.

Now just how much did he give the right in that vote? This vendetta is aimed the wrong way, I have yet to find just why, but it's there. Anger is not the issue as far as I can see, it's much deeper than that.

[dsc]

35. He appointed a man who thinks gays shouldn't serve

and who, on the very day of the vote, said so publicly. Again, if he had appointed someone who felt women shouldn't serve, or blacks shouldn't serve, would that be OK?

[jaxx]

36. It's not his call, is it?

He also said this:

<snip> At the hearing, Amos told the committee that he believes responses from Marines on repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have been mostly negative so far.

Amos said he had heard that at Marine bases and in Marines' responses to an online survey, the feeling "is predominantly negative." He added: "But I don't know that as a fact."

However, Amos made clear that he and the Marine Corps would accept the new policy if and when the law gets changed and the president, defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman certify that it would not impede military effectiveness and readiness.

"The Marine Corps is probably one of the most faithful services you have in our country," Amos said. "And if the law is changed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States, the Marine Corps will get in step and do it smartly."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/21/marine-general-opposes-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/

He has no say so in the matter, and his personal opinion is not relevant because he openly admits he'll follow orders with no sass. I read somewhere today that none of the branch heads are for the repeal...has that made the senate ignore it? No. But one more time......the repukes voted against letting the bill even be debated. The angst should be aimed at them, not the Democrats.

[dsc]

37. then all the service heads should be fired

as they damn well would be if they were anti black. But of course, being anti black actually matters where being anti gay doesn't. The fact is it is disgraceful that Obama hired bigots to head the armed services. That is regardless of the outcome of this vote.

[jaxx]

38. Is this a purity test?

Like the religious do when hiring...you either agree with our way and believe like we do or you don't get hired? I think it's been said many times on here that that is not relevant to doing the job. Neither is the personal thoughts of the brass.

Stop and think about the demand that all think alike in the military. It's not going to happen. They are there to do the job, if they can't do the job they'll be terminated. Nobody thinks alike, people have their own oddities but they don't cart them along to the job. Somebody doesn't like gay people, somebody doesn't like black people, somebody doesn't like fat people...we can keep going. Are you going to hire any of them, or demand they see it your way?

[dsc]

39. yeah I would refrain from hiring those who think blacks are unfit to serve

that isn't a very hard question for me. I am amazed you at least admit that it would be OK to hire racists. Wow, just wow is all I can say.

[jaxx]

40. If you'd ever hired anyone you would know it's illegal to ask them those questions.

I have an African-American daughter-in-law, I'm not likely to be a racist, but thanks for the shove that way in your statement...not. I also have a gay transsexual sister, so you're not going to get far on that one either. Before you throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks, it might help to stop with the finger pointing. Remember 3 of them point right back at you.

[LiberalAndProud]

46. I am certain that there are good soldiers in positions of power

who believe that they shouldn't. They aren't free to say so, because they would be bucking established military policy. We can see the fruits of that bias, especially in the treatment of female personnel in the military.