"Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Showdown Looming in Senate

The Pentagon launched Operation New Dawn on September 1, purportedly signaling the end of combat operati0ns in Iraq after seven years. This week, those backing the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law — clearing the way for openly gay men and women to serve in the U.S. military — are pinning their hopes for their own new dawn after 17 years under a law that makes them hide their sexual orientation. They’re hoping their daylight may break Tuesday afternoon when the Senate, following the House’s lead, is slated to hold a key vote towards abolishing the law. But opponents, fearing that scrapping the ban would lead droves of service personnel to abandon the military and hurt the nation’s fighting forces amid two wars, are fighting back and may be on the verge of prevailing.

U.S. troops in Afghanistan/DoD photo

If both houses pass the law and it wins President Obama’s signature as part of the 2011 defense authorization bill, all it would take to end the ban is a certification by Pentagon leaders that allowing gays to serve openly would not hurt military readiness. That decision would likely come around year’s end following a Pentagon study, now underway, into the impact of lifting the ban.

Both backers and opponents of the change say the outcome remains too close to call, although late Sunday backers of repeal said they believe they don’t yet have the 60 votes they need to halt an expected filibuster and push ahead with the repeal effort. Pop star Lady Gaga is headlining a rally at the University of Southern Maine in Portland on Monday to convince the state’s two GOP moderate senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, to join the Democrats in shutting down Republican efforts to cut off the debate. “We need at least one or two Republicans to help,” one pro-repeal strategist says. “Senators Snowe and Collins are the best chance we have.” Those pushing repeal know that now may be their last opportunity for awhile — GOP gains in the Nov. 2 election could make passage next year far more difficult.

Publicly, advocates of change remain optimistic. “I think a majority of the Senate, like a majority of the American people, wants to see `Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ go,” says Army veteran Aubrey Sarvis, director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group dedicated to ending the ban. “It’s been a cultural change led by young people.” Polls suggest most Americans favor ending the ban.

But not everyone agrees. Elaine Donnelly, of the non-profit Center for Military Readiness, warns that scrapping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” could drive people out of the military. “Combined voluntary and involuntary losses of careerists in communities, grades, and skills that are not easily replaceable could break the all-volunteer force,” she says. An unscientific survey of U.S. troops by the independent Military Times newspapers last fall showed 51 percent opposed lifting the ban.

The language repealing the law is an amendment to next year’s defense authorization bill, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled for debate Tuesday afternoon. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican and one-time Navy pilot, has pledged to “fight every way we can” to preserve any decision on the ban until the Pentagon concludes its study into the impact of lifting it. Tuesday’s vote will be to shut down any filibuster aimed at preventing debate to proceed on ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” If backers of repeal get the 60 votes need to continue the debate, they believe they’ll also have the votes to overturn the ban.

The fact that the nation may be poised to reverse the 17-year old law shows just how far public opinion on the issue has shifted. When Congress passed what came to be known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law in 1993, there was a sense that lawmakers were slamming the door on the possibility of openly gay people serving in the military for decades. They had taken the action as a slap at then-President Bill Clinton, who came into office brandishing a promise to let homosexuals serve openly — without checking first with either the Pentagon or Capitol Hill. To teach him a lesson — and to show the new President at what end of Pennsylvania Avenue the real power resided — Congress wrote what had been merely a Presidential order into the law of the land.

The 2010 debate changed markedly in February when Obama — who has pledged to lift the ban, but can’t do so without congressional approval — won support from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and, more critically, from Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While there are reservations about lifting the ban among some senior officers, General Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, said last Wednesday that the military is ready to follow orders. “The working groups [the Pentagon has set up to deal with any change in the law] have looked at the various issues that might entail should the law change — everything from billeting to entitlements to personal displays of affection to you name it,” he said. Such preparation will let the military “take a much more thoughtful, targeted and effective approach to implementation.”

Assuming a vote to repeal, Obama, Gates and Mullen each has to certify that lifting the ban won’t hurt national security. Some opponents have suggested adding Schwartz and the three other service chiefs to that list, which could hamper repeal (the ground-pounding Army and Marines generally seem more opposed to changing the law than the Air Force and Navy). McCain and others also have said the idea of voting to lift the ban before the Pentagon finishes its own report on the matter, due Dec. 1, is backwards. The proposed law specifies that if the Pentagon officials declare changing the policy would hurt readiness, the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rules “shall remain in effect.”

For more than a decade, the law — and the Pentagon policy that flowed from it — remained unshaken, even as more than 1,000 troops a year were forced out once their sexual orientation became known. Even the brutal murder of PFC Barry Winchell at Kentucky’s Fort Campbell in 1999 didn’t do much to change things. More than anything else, it seems it was the incongruity of kicking highly-trained troops out of uniform as the nation waged two seemingly endless wars — amid recruiting challenges and “stop-loss” orders that kept soldiers on duty months beyond their enlistments — that has made repeal a real option.

The Senate debate comes two weeks after Federal District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled in California that the policy violates the 1st and 5th amendment rights of gay service personnel. Unlike many prior jurists, she didn’t steer clear of imposing her views on the Pentagon, declaring that barring openly gay people from serving has “a direct and deleterious effect” on the military. “Judge Phillips’ decision,” repeal supporter Sarvis says, “should be a catalyst for the Senate to act.” Repeal opponent Donnelly is amazed that a federal judge would interfere with the operation of the U.S. military. “They should leave such issues to the Congress,” she says. Looks like Tuesday’s vote will be one of the rare points in this long-running debate that both can agree on.

Related Topics: don't ask don't tell, Troops, National Security
  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • sacredh

    Keeping some American citizens as second class citizens isn’t American.

  • Art Pepper

    Pop star Lady Gaga is headlining a rally [...] to convince the state’s two GOP moderates, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe

    That’s …. very strange.

  • sacredh

    Are there any groups that republicans aren’t in favor of discriminating against?

  • sacredh

    I hope she leaves the meat dress at home.

  • Art Pepper

    Snowe: “I was leaning toward a ‘no’ vote, but if Lady Gaga is for it, that changes everything.”
    .
    Collins: “I know! There hasn’t been a gender-bending pop icon this exciting since David Bowie during his Aladdin Sane period.”
    .
    Snowe: “Well, I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, Susan…”

  • fractal86

    Rich people?

  • textee

    Obama and Gates will also instruct that the commanders of all military installations conduct semi-annual so-called “Gay Pride” parades on each military installation. The “Gay Pride” parades will not only include the now open homosexuals in the military, but will also include every other member of the military who will be required to march along, in drag, with the commanders parading in the lead. Given his vast expertise on the United States military and the art of warfare, the clueless, militantly anti-military Obama says such parades will improve the capabilities of the United States military. Given his equally vast expertise on the United States military and the art of warfare, the hair-plugged buffoon, serial plagiarist and leftist dingbat Joe Biden has also announced (with the predictable absence of any evidence) that “I (i.e., Biden) have spoken to every soldier at Fort Benning, Fort Bragg and West Point and to a man they all support “Gay Pride” parades on post and the Obama requirement that all soldiers gallivant along in the parades in drag.”

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Rich angry white men?

  • ohiolibb

    Ignorant crazy wingnuts?

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    You are such a liar!!!

  • ohiolibb

    Erie, there’s not actually a person on the other end of the textee moniker, just a machine that strings together right-wing buzz words and spams random blogs.

  • sacredh

    Hot angry white women that have either been exorcised or dabbled in witchcraft?

  • sacredh

    Somebody has their robe open.

  • Ike Jakson

    Oh come on sacredh. We have not always agreed but I like your personal brand of satire, but this one ….

    This is nutty; it should not be a matter for the Senate. Don’t they have other important matters to attend to?

    The Armed Forces should handle such trivialities, as I bet you will find in China, Russia and the other World Powers.

    Come to think of it, that’s why they are now the World Leaders with even their students laughing at America.

  • kevin

    Gay soldiers have served openly in Russia for two decades.
    .
    And the same goes for about thirty other countries, including the UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Poland, Czech Republic, Spain, Switzerland, etc. etc. When the rest of the world looks at us on this issue, they think we’re idiots.
    .
    And sorry, but “we should imitate communist China and listen to what our unelected military leaders dictate” isn’t really that persuasive an argument.

  • herby002

    Ike,

    The Congress has to be involved. Don’t ask… is a matter of federal law, so Congress has to change it.

    It is not a “trivial matter” to the millions of Americans (and their families) who are barred from serving in our armed forces, or to the thousands of qualified, trained soldiers/sailors/air force personnel who have been ejected from the services – not for what they did, but for what they are.

  • apr2563

    I would propose the brave keyboard warriors who support DADT confront the homosexuals currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and tell them to their face they are not worthy of recognition. Tell the parents of those young men and women who have died serving under DADT that their children were less worthy. Tell those wounded in combat under DADT that their suffering isn’t worthy.
    .
    If you are a gay or lesbian serving under DADT it is not a “trivial” matter. Nor, textee, is it a cause for you to compose your pathetic attempt a humor.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    A significant part of our counterterrorism strategy involves working WITH local governments and representing a better alternative to the extremists we’re combatting. Do we really think people who would high-tail it and run if they learned they were serving with next to gays are the best choice for such a mission?

  • retairforceman

    I served for more than 21 yrs active duty and 15 yrs civil service for the Air Force. I can tell you point blank to stop DONT ASK DONT TELL is a huge mistake. Put yourself in a new recruits shoes when he is sent to his first duty station and is assigned to an openly gay supervisor with other openly gay service members. He accepts the situation as goes about his own business of military duties and has to use the bathroom. To his astonishment his supervisor follows him into the bathroom with other higher ranking airmen stand over the wall urinal to watch him. They ask if he needs any help and if he would like other services. The new recruit goes contemplates the situation and who would believe a new recruit. AWOL/RUNNING IS THE ONLY SOLUTION. As the gay/lesbian world is much like the good ol boys club or catholic diocese protecting those immorally corrupt and criminal. The military world as we know it would be destroyed by the liberal left who want our NATION destroyed. A military draft after the passage of OPENLY GAYS IN THE MILITARY would be non existent. It would lead to a denunciation of miltary pride and service but would become GAY PRIDE OR LESBIAN FREEDOM. If American can not invision what our corrupt/cruel/perverted society has become then surely the end of our society as we know it is at hand. SURELY OPEN WARFARE IS NOT FAR AWAY IN OUR OWN LAND. GESTAPO MENTALITY AND UNJUST PERSECUTION TO THOSE WITH MORALS AND CHRISTIAN BELIEFS WILL OCCUR IF WE REMAIN SILENT. My beloved pride of military service will surely die with the sickening immoral behavior of gays, lesbians, pedophiles, rapists, degenerates justifying their actions and corruption of our Armed Forces.

  • poulser

    Rather than spending the time dissecting your sickening and flawed logic piece by piece, I’ll just go with this:
    You, sir, are ignorant, and our military is better without your active service.

  • afguy

    And here’s another 20 year retiree who would disagree with you.

  • afguy

    Above comment addressed to retairforceman, NOT poulser.

  • bellestarrr

    As a gay man gay now since 1964 who got a 4y or whatever type of deferrment during the viet nam war…i prefer to let my straight brothers and sisters invade other countries for our colonial purposes..I will defend ?America if we actually get attacked on our soil but anything else forget it…i was too smart then and have an even better understanding of things now…when a country and an institution expects you to give up your life and then treats u like a 2nd class citizen..well you know the word that comes before —– them. Never regretted it or felt any remorse…let the straights go to slaughter and be the hero’s…who cares.

  • bellestarrr

    just read comment # 8 and that only reinforces my opinion of the military rednecks and straight in general…sorry kids..im gonna enjoy my life not come home in a box to a bunch of phony government officials and some parents wondering why their son went to fight a war cause the president decided we need to go to war….

  • afguy

    My suggestion for the “brave keyboard warriors” is to get thee down to a recruitment center and join up, if you’re THAT worried about the quality of the force if gays are allowed to serve.
    .
    I still say that, by the time ALL of the wedge issues available in this country are used and play out politically, we won’t have enough people willing to talk to (or work with) each other to defend a 7-11 against a one-legged shop-lifter.

    Our biggest common enemy is the army of political operatives and consultants trying to win elections ANY WAY THEY CAN.

  • kevin

    Does the “ret” stand for “retarded”?
    .
    You have quite an active fantasy life there, pal. You might want to talk to a psychiatrist about those barely repressed feelings of yours.

  • celador2

    Once upon a time the Us was a nation of peaceful intent, a regional power not an imperial one. We had a peace time miltary that was defensive. Since Cold war US has become a super power with troops around the globe.

    A nation that runs the world by occupation needs a large military to both protect the US and police the world. We seem to hire contractors and foreigners (DREAM ACT) to fill the quota for overworked men and women who serve many tours endlessly in ME.

    Why not allow gays who want to serve continue to do so.to fill the ever growing demand for the military?

  • textee

    Can we get the political activists at Time magazine to post some photos from “Gay Pride” parades, so that everybody has a good idea of what the militantly, anti-military Obama’s plans are to transform the United States military into another arm of his freakshow (i.e., the Democrat party)?

  • xtweaky

    When Mother Monster calls, her little monsters listen.

  • xtweaky

    you paint gays and lesbians like they are sexually rabid creatures that have no control over themselves and are ready to pounce on anything with two legs and the same parts they have, regardless of their sexual orientation. i am positive, in the history of the US military, that a commanding officer who is female has come onto a lower-ranking officer who is a male, and vice versa; you can’t stereotype like that, people like you are the reason gays and lesbians are fighting — and winning — legislative acts like prop 8 and (next week) the blocking of senator john mccains plan to stall the debate on this unconstitutional and morally wrong act. it is being used incorrectly, it is RIDICULOUS that two men can fight for our nation but not hold hands.

    think about it.

  • pundit70

    This comment shows a lot of ignorance on the subject. Or homophobia? You know what they say about it….Why don’t you give yourself the freedom to be who you really are and stop hiding your true inclinations behind homophobia?

  • afguy

    Why, oh, why isn’t someone at Time trying to come to grip with the meaning of this demonstration that happened over the weekend in Delaware? Or, at the very least, stand up for the rights of these “individualists”?
    .
    sacredh, medium speed curve ball, waist-high, right over the fat part of the plate… your call as to what you do with it (or not).

  • pundit70

    …and I ma sure you would have been against de-segregating the Army 40 years ago, and I am sure you would have been against women in the military less than 30 years ago. This is typical of conservatives: they want to drag our country back to their “comfort level”, when everything was “the good old days”.
    The good old days were good if you were a white straight male. How many of those do we still have left? And we are supposed to adjust to what the retrogrades think is best? Or are you going to impose your insaniTEA and you stupidiTEA on us through a ultra-conservative Tea party? America is different now. Different enough to see right through your BS.

    And by the way for every service man like you, I know TEN who disagree with you. And yes, younger and currently working in the Army, so they would be the ones dealing with this.

  • pundit70

    I have a better idea. Why don’t we show pictures of the Tea Party rallies and the ideals of their candidates (like the Christian-Fascism regime they are planning for the US of A if they win) and see what the right wing nuts and their pro-militarism, pro “let’s-invade-all-Muslim-countries” are planning on doing. If you don’t believe in Gays in the military, very simple: DON’T ENLIST! Otherwise, shut up and let the adults have a conversation.

  • seventhrama

    When I took my oath of enlistment to join the Navy, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Once I got into Boot Camp, I learned that the “Constitution” of the military was the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In my mind, there was no mistake that primarily I gave up my Constitutional rights to preserve the rights of my civilians counterparts. It is not the role of the Executive or the Judiciary to change DADT. As slow and tedious as legislative process is, I feel this is the only way to resolve the legal issue of gays openly serving in the military. However, it will still be up to the military to faithfully carryout the dictates of whatever new law is enacted—under the watchful eye of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces—in other words, it ain’t over until it’s over.

  • 3xfire3

    sacredh,
    .
    We all know that retairforceman and textee are way over the top in their comments.
    .
    But you and many Liberals come right back and also make over the top comments.
    .
    You’re all just as guilty as these guys are in spreading partisan and prejudice opinions and trying to pass them off as truth.
    .
    “Are there any groups that republicans aren’t in favor of discriminating against?”
    .
    Very partisan and dumb. You know better.
    .
    “…and I ma sure you would have been against de-segregating the Army 40 years ago, and I am sure you would have been against women in the military less than 30 years ago. This is typical of conservatives: they want to drag our country back to their “comfort level”, when everything was “the good old days”.
    .
    This is no more typical of Conservatives then it is Liberals. 99% of Conservatives do not have these beliefs and it’s ignorant to make a comment like that.
    .
    “And by the way for every service man like you, I know TEN who disagree with you. And yes, younger and currently working in the Army, so they would be the ones dealing with this.”
    .
    This is an opinion without any proof. Let’s stick to the facts. As a Veteran my best guess would be that no more then 30% would currently support DADT.
    .
    “just read comment # 8 and that only reinforces my opinion of the military rednecks and straight in general.”
    .
    Warped Opinion.
    .
    My further comments
    .
    1. Is there truly a Constitutional Issue involved here?
    .
    2. A confidential survey of Senior Military Officers should be conducted.
    .
    3. A confidential survey of the Military rank and file should be conducted. This could be done on sampling bases.
    .
    4. The President, the majority and minority leaders of Congress, The Secretary of Defense and the Military Chief of Staff should meet and discuss and consider the findings from the 3 above items and jointly make a decision on whether DADT should be implemented. If their answer is yes then a bill should be introduced in Congress to change DADT.
    .
    I have a word of advice for my Liberal friends. It is your right to feel very passionately about an issue. It is also your right to sincerely believe your opinion is the correct action.
    But you need to remember we live in a Democracy where other citizens also have a right to their opinions and to believe sincerely theirs is the correct action.
    .
    What neither side has is a right to do is demonize and hate the other side because they don’t share your beliefs. No mater how right we sincerely believe we are, when we are in the minority we must accept the right of the majority. To do otherwise means we are not willing to live under the principles of a Democracy.

  • omgamike

    The author of this article fails to note another, more drastic reason that this will not pass at this time, that has nothing to do with DADT. Harry Reid’s insertion into the defense authorization bill of the “DREAM” act, dealing with some aspects of amnesty for some illegal aliens. I believe that the Senate Republicans are united in their opposition to the DREAM act, at this point in time. I know I am dead set against it. And, no, I am not a liberal. I am an independent.

  • omgamike

    You are ‘both’, a liar and a very sick individual. Gays and lesbians are already serving in the military, with pride and honor. Not “gay pride”, just pride. Those very same men and women are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, right alongside those “straight” men and women who have also died serving their country. You, sir, are a homophobe.

  • scooterfox

    omga..

    why exacty are you against the DREAM act? it seems pretty reasonable.

  • spjon

    You have an intelligent answer but it’s rather flawed. I’m only going to point out a couple of things.

    1) We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC and not in true democracy. This means we elect people to vote for us in our government. It also means that we are NOT a majority rules nation. Documents such as the Constitution, even more specifically the Bill of Rights, were framed to protect the minority from the majority. This means that you are wrong with your last comment. The majority is not always right and can be overruled. I truly believe that should be the case here.

    Also, you made 4 points of things we need to do.

    Numbers 1,2, and 3 have already been done. Number four has not and I tend to agree with you that we need to do that before there is a vote.

  • spjon

    The way I see it is that if you can’t deal with a gay person I’d prefer you didn’t handle a weapon.

  • sacredh

    “Don’t they have other important matters to attend to?
    .
    Making sure all Americans have equal rights seems like extremely important business to me. Gay men and women are willing to fight and die for this country. They deserve the same respect as anyone else. They should be able to be who they are and not have to hide behind a facade. A person’s self identify is just as important as religion, poltitical beliefs or any other constitutionally guaranteed rights. I maintain that denying a gay person the same rights as anyone else is unAmerican.

  • sacredh

    If God was against masturbation, why would HE make our arms the perfect length for it? God wants us to be happy. Yanking the crank makes us happy. O’Donnel is 41, unmarried and doesn’t maturbate. No wonder the b!tch is p!ssed off. I think I know what would make her happy but I just can’t put my finger on it.

  • sacredh

    3xfire3, I don’t feel that all American citizens having the same rights is a minor issue at all. Either we all have the same rights or else “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a bullsh!t slogan that’s nothing more than a lie. It’s not over the top and there aren’t more important issues. Equal rights is what America stands for. Having millions of people treated as second class citizens is a national disgrace.

  • sacredh

    retairforceman, thank you for an ignorant bullsh!t post. I thank you for your service, but you’re a fool. An ignorant, bigotted fool. I hope to God you didn’t breed.

  • formerlyjames

    scooterfox, my thought exactly. Pretty innocuous piece of social legislation. I would be opposed to secreting it in a bill which has nothing to do with it, but I guess that is necessary, given the political climate these days.
    .
    omgamike, I would never take you for a liberal. I assume you meant to say you are not a crazed right winger. Even stipulating that, your opposition to this nothing bill is not explained by the “independent” label. Don’t know what that means. I do know that we can just forget talk of DADT in your corner (I laugh).

  • herby002

    celador,
    I can sorta agree with your last sentence, but not the first:
    You forgot the Mexican War, which was a huge land grab, based on a trumped-up incident, after Mexico refused to sell us tens of thousands of acres of land at pennies on the dollar.
    Then there was the Spanish-American War, which gave us the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and dozens of islands that we used as naval supply stations – and made the US a world power on par with the other colonialist nations.
    Oh, yeah… don’t forget Panama, which we wanted as the location of a Pacific-Atlantic canal. When Columbia refused to give up the Isthmus, we fomented a revolt by Panamanians, then used US Navy warships to block Columbia from stop its province from forming an “independent” new nation.
    You might also want to read up on the Indian Wars, most of which were not “defensive”, when you consider that many of the tribes were defending their own land, ratified by treaties.

  • 3xfire3

    spjon,
    .
    “You have an intelligent answer but it’s rather flawed. I’m only going to point out a couple of things.

    1) We live in a Democratic REPUBLIC and not in true democracy.”
    .
    You to make some valid points but they are rather flawed.
    .
    Yes we live in a Democratic Republic. We elect people based on the issues that they say the stand for. Elected officials know that if they do not take seriously the feelings of the people who elected them they will probably lose the next election.
    .
    The laws made obviously must be Constitutional and not violate any other laws. That being said congress does make new laws that must meet the Constitutional processes.
    .
    We are in fact a majority ruled nation as long as the rules of the majority do not violate the Constitutional rights of the minority.

  • 3xfire3

    sacredh,
    .
    “3xfire3, I don’t feel that all American citizens having the same rights is a minor issue at all. Either we all have the same rights or else “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a bullsh!t slogan that’s nothing more than a lie.”
    .
    As I said you have a right to your opinion but remember it is your opinion and not necessarily a fact. Ultimately it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret these issues as to their Constitutionality.
    .
    Do be blinded by your ideology. In a Democracy others also have a right to their opinions.

  • 3xfire3

    That is your opinion.
    .
    Other people could make the argument that we currently have by far the very best fighting force in the world.
    .
    As the saying goes. If It Isn’t Broken Don’t Fix It.
    .
    I’m not saying that this is my view. I’m just saying there are other opinions out there that have valid points to be considered.

  • mjwilstein

    watch an excerpt from Lady Gaga’s 20 minute speech on ‘Don’t Ask, Dont Tell’ yesterday:
    http://bit.ly/aoysHZ

  • spjon

    3xfire3: You quoted me as saying that your comment is flawed, obviously saying that mine is. But when I read your comment there is no counter argument. Rather you seem to agree with me…

  • spjon

    True, but “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” is definitely not the model this country follows. The history of our country is a progressive one. We’ve been the top dog because we’ve constantly improved on things, especially technology although now we’re slowing down and it’s hurting us. Just because it ain’t broke doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be improved. I respect you but that’s just dumb.

  • 3xfire3

    spjon,
    .
    ‘Just because it aren’t broke doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be improved. I respect you but that’s just dumb.’
    .
    I said it was not my opinion but it illustrate that there are other opinions that should be considered.
    .
    I know from 71 years of experience and a lot of education that sometimes when someone tries to change something that’s working very well, the changes sometimes backfire and cause substantial harm to that which was working very well.
    .

blog comments powered by Disqus