Gay Apartheid

innerSpaceman · 07-30-2009, 02:07 PM

You got it right, Betty.

For years, decades in fact, Republicans have been using the power of de-funding to defeat elements of passed legislation they could not defeat with votes.

The Dems don't try this nearly as much (but maybe because they didn't have as much opportunity).

In any event, though it's a back-channel way of stopping DADT, Obama once again looks hypocritical (in a way) for having his administration put pressure on to short circuit this method. Of course, this may not exactly be the "act of Congress" Obama was looking for, but it IS an act of Congress and he should get on board (imo)

Of course, I admit this is sort of in line with him refusing to simply order a stop to the investigations and firings, which he has the power to do. He said he would not, and wants an act of Congress. I suppose he meant an actual law repealing DADT, but he's responsible for his choice of words.

07-30-2009, 02:07 PM	#11
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	You got it right, Betty. For years, decades in fact, Republicans have been using the power of de-funding to defeat elements of passed legislation they could not defeat with votes. The Dems don't try this nearly as much (but maybe because they didn't have as much opportunity). In any event, though it's a back-channel way of stopping DADT, Obama once again looks hypocritical (in a way) for having his administration put pressure on to short circuit this method. Of course, this may not exactly be the "act of Congress" Obama was looking for, but it IS an act of Congress and he should get on board (imo) Of course, I admit this is sort of in line with him refusing to simply order a stop to the investigations and firings, which he has the power to do. He said he would not, and wants an act of Congress. I suppose he meant an actual law repealing DADT, but he's responsible for his choice of words.
	Submit to Quotes