- Hillary Clinton has publicly changed her position on marriage equality.
- You simply cannot hold her accountable for husband’s action while in office.
13 Likes
Horseshit.
And it stinks on ice.
Hillary Clinton is fully on board for marriage equality, and she supports protection for the LGBT community in anti-discrimination laws.
If you were really interested, you would know these things.
But all you’re interested in is trashing her at every opportunity.
Hillary is far from my ideal candidate, but your lies about her are both risible and unnecessary.
16 Likes
He’s not going to win the nomination anyway, so if the only reason I’m at the Oscars is to get noticed, why not commision Donnatella to design me a crotchless number?
Ted Cruz, R U listening? You should have your entire campaign produced by Mel Brooks.
And now it’s …
Springtime for Ted Cruz and Gitmo Bay
Texas is happy and gay [Yes it is!]
We’re cruz’ing on high test hypocrisy.
Look out, here comes our misogyny!
I was born in Calgary
That’s why Not Born Here they call me.
Don’t be lib’rul, nor a smarty,
Come and join our old Tea Party
5 Likes
I don’t need to brush up on my history. I know it all too well. I lived it, thank you. Just because something passes with a veto-proof majority doesn’t mean a president has to sign it. The president CAN veto it if he disagrees with it. Who knows? Maybe that will change some votes, maybe it won’t. But s/he will have followed through on their words and promises. (Remember, Bill Clinton famously said he felt our pain… then he inflicted more of it on us.)
Your take on DADT is revisionist drivel. It was seen and predicted at the time as enabling what was going to happen to happen. There was a huge backlash at the time from the LGBT community. Clinton, as I said in another post, could have (before Congress passed DADT), used his executive authority to allow gays to serve openly – just like Truman did when he integrated the troops. But he didn’t. Again, he signed the bill. And you are WRONG — DADT was law. Congress passed it into law. It was not just a DOD directive. That’s why Congress had to pass the repeal. If it was just a DOD Directive, DADT could have been overridden with a new directive.
1 Like
Well, there IS such a thing as being principled and then there is money.
1 Like
Okay----we get it.
You hate the Clintons with an all-consuming passion.
But you are disingenuous at best, and your so-called arguments don’t hold water.
7 Likes
Perhaps. But we’ll never know. But, at least, he would have been true to his word. Instead, being the craven political animal he is (and she is the same – don’t kid yourself), he signed it. And the same was true of DOMA. Besides, it’s difficult to believe that there would be a policy that would be much tougher than the outright ban which existed at the time.
Prove it. The Clintons SAY a lot of things only to abandon them when it gets in their way. Bill Clinton said he felt our pain. Then he signed DADT, DOMA and had LGBT visitors to the White House searched with rubber gloves (including their belongings) when no one else was.
All I’ve heard from Hillary and Bill is talk about equality. I’ve seen nothing as a positive action on it. Actions speak louder than words. If you were really interested, you would know these things. I’m not lying. I’m stating facts and history. Something you’ve failed to do. Belittle me if you want – but it doesn’t make me wrong.
See my other posts. My arguments are based on facts and history. You, on the other hand, have offered only belittling comments about me and tepid support for Hillary.
Prove me wrong. It’s easy to be glib when the facts aren’t on your side.
Not up to anyone to prove you wrong. The burden of proof (facts, not opinion) lies with the person making the claim.
8 Likes
I agree that she cannot be held accountable for her husband’s actions. However, the two do operate in a very similar way. I offer my comments as a caution in lauding Hillary as some great supporter of LGBT equality. Believe me, if someone offered money tomorrow to deny LGBT people their rights, she’d take the money then, just like Bill, after she got elected, she’d act in a very different way.
As I’ve said other places, actions speak louder than words. So show me actions, Hillary.
Reisner introducing the Tedster:
1 Like
Origin of DADT
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.Commander Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, expressed the opposition of many in the military at the time when he said, “Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous” and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an “uncomfortable feeling of someone watching”.
During the 1993 policy debate, the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment. It concluded that “circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention” if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions. On May 5, 1993, Gregory M. Herek, associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis and an authority on public attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on behalf of several professional associations. He stated: “The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters.” Herek added: “The assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one.”
In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and Barry Goldwater, a former Republican Senator and a retired Major General, who argued on behalf of allowing service by open gays and lesbians. In a June 1993 Washington Post opinion piece, Goldwater wrote: “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight,” after Congressional phone lines were flooded by organized anti-gay opposition, indicating substantial public opposition to Clinton’s open service proposal.
Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton’s planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy. Congress included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy. The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993, issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation. This is the policy now known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.
In accordance with the December 21, 1993, Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654) that homosexuality was incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging service members.
The full name of the policy at the time was “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue”. The “Don’t Ask” provision mandated that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The “Don’t Tell” stated that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. The “Don’t Pursue” established what was minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. A “Don’t Harass” provision was added to the policy later. It ensured that the military would not allow harassment or violence against service members for any reason.
Checkmate
17 Likes
Militant homosexuals on the attack! 
1 Like
Okay, I like a good debate of ideas, but you are simply showing your ass here.
You have a couple of REALLY smart posters here politely and patiently expressing facts to perhaps give you an opportunity to learn some nuance of history to temper your exhaustively trite and uninformed statements. You instead put your fingers in your ears and holler loudly 'LA LA LA … I can’t hear you".
You could learn something from these folks … I know I do all of the time.
9 Likes
According to the article they hosted an event where the money was raised, it doesn’t appear that it was their money. How is giving them the money that other people gave to Hilary the least bit productive? At best it means those people have to find some other way to get the money to Hilary and at worse they find some way to pocket the money and come out ahead in the deal.
Edit:
Just out of curiosity would it be possible to get the source for all of that?
1 Like
This sam-toad is amazingly pathetic … reason does not appeal to him.
3 Likes
It does if they want to be “politically realistic” … aka cowardly. But he knew people would cover for him, and all this time later they still are.
Dear, this proves you shouldnt just rely on wikipedia. Congress passed Section 654, Title 10, P.L. 103-160, this specifically barred openly LGBT persons from serving. Then Clinton issued the Directive which said service persons should be asked (even though they continued to be).
The bit you quote from wikipedia (which you don’t source, by the way, dear) says that “it was legal policy (10 U.S.C.§ 654).” That’s more than just a directive. According to http://uscode.house.gov/, “The United States Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.” If this had just been a directive or Executive Order, an act of Congress repealing it wouldn’t have been necessary.
Checkmate.
1 Like