When Bill Clinton approved the "Don't ask Don't tell." policy in the military. I mean seriously?
2007-03-16 14:52:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Whoever gets elected, they'd better give gay people their rights as Americans. I still don't get why they can't marry, I mean how does gay marriage really hurt straight marriage, or the institution of marriage, or the family? Oh yes, I also think gays should be able to openly serve in the military. We've already lost 11000+ servicemen and women because of this ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Our troop levels are stretched enough as it is, we can't fight as effectively while we still have this arbitrary policy slowing us down.
2007-03-16 16:35:13 · answer #1 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Publicans should thank their lucky stars that the Constitution limits presidents to two terms. Bill Clinton would probably still be president. He would have knocked the socks off of The Shrub. Wouldn't that be great? The Shrub would still be in Midland losing money (other peoples money) in his hare brained schemes. But daddy would have come to the rescue once again, he saved the little Shrub from service in Viet Nam and from his bankruptcy using some rich Texans money, as he did before.
na
2007-03-16 23:04:45 · answer #2 · answered by bigjohn B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Homosexuals wanted a Clinton to become President because the gays will be allowed to have make-up in military formations.
2007-03-16 23:04:03 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they hope she'll be creative in her approach to finding solutions for alleviating the oppression homosexuals endure in American society. The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy was a creative solution. Not great, but better than the alternative.
2007-03-16 22:02:24 · answer #4 · answered by luv books 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doubtful - like most liberal interest groups they know that the Clintons can only be believed as far as they can be thrown and they're both so porky that that isn't very far at all!
Nah, Little Billy did whatever he dam well pleased for eight years and there's no reason to think his moll would be any different - if anything, her lust for power marks her as someone who'd have no compunctions about throwing over the side any liberal interest group for which she had no further use.
2007-03-16 21:58:49 · answer #5 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh yeah, like Bush has done so much, any repuglican for that matter. Clinton did want to take it farther but was stopped by repuglicans. Maybe Rudy will help them he is all for same sex unions.
2007-03-16 22:02:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hillary is not equipped to give homosexuals what they really want.
2007-03-16 22:06:27 · answer #7 · answered by Namtrac 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maybe they want what Monica got but I don't know if ole Bill would want just anyone gnawing on him.
2007-03-16 21:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hopefully homosexuals will get nothing they want.
2007-03-16 21:57:17 · answer #9 · answered by J S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was Hillary behind that all the way.
2007-03-16 21:55:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋