Re: The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever

You may be right.  It is certainly possible.
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:21 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever
 
I stand admonished but I don't know about corrected yet.
 
I haven't done much research but I thought the ban on homosexuals in the military was a "law", but that Clinton issued the directive that became known as DADT
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/html2/d130426x.htm
 
 
So I think the president, as Commander in Chief, could in effect order the statutory ban not to be enforced.   
 
 
  _____  

From: Karl <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 3:10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever
Since DADT is law passed by congress, I am not sure whether he can order directly or issue an executive order.
 
Just sayin
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 1:07 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever
 
Um, I'm pretty sure that DADT is a military matter and that Obama is Commander in Chief.  He doesn't need a single republican's, (or democrats for that matter), vote to change that.  Please take everyone out of that equation that doesn't belong there.
 
Mike F.   
 
  _____  

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 2:48:36 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever
**why?  I mean which is worse, one party dominating  and telling the other party
to roll over and take it from behind, or the other party from refusing to submit
and saying NO?  That's what has been happening for the last 2 years.
Actually, they gave Republicans opportunities to participate in Healthcare, but Republicans wanted to have their whims bowed to.  Now, mind you, i found it problematic and weak of the President to just tell the Congress "write something and I will come back and sign it."    He should have been an active part of putting the bill together, considering how important he felt it was that Healthcare be reformed.  
 
Listen, I am more than willing to accept the last two years have been a two way street, and to take back accusations that it is all Republican's fault.  But I am not able to buy it was all Democrats either.
 
**I don’t think that is all that is happening.  The tea party has not toally
embraced the republicans, and vice versa.
I guess I missed all the Democrats the Tea Party voted into office...and all the Republicans they condemned.
 
>And more, certain things that I see as issues of liberty are things many, MANY
>of the current Republican party oppose. 

**like...
DADT and Gay Marriage.  I am concerned for Friends and family because we now have a majority in Congress that is skewed to, at best?  Likening homosexuality to alcoholism (okay, that isn't fair, Ken Buck lost).  Is there a single Republican that could be seen as a person gays could trust to look out for them?  
 
>It feels like an expansion of liberty I was once hopeful for is now dead.

**huh?  The democrats controlled things for the last 4 years, and that is the
republicans fault?
Right...and now the Republicans are in power and that progress is looking to be lost.  Because there are some Democrats who do not support gay rights and there appear to be no Republicans that do, it cuts into the chances of seeing gay people allowed to freely serve.
Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot