Dadt was an improvement in policy. It meant no one could investigate you on suspicion of being queer and them kick you out. You can imagine that before that many people were investigated for being queer just because.
It is, actually. How do you think they deal with a knife stuck in your back at the hospital? Do they leave it in?
That it is not enough doesn’t mean it’s not improvement…because relative values and absolute values aren’t the same thing, you illiterate fucking doorknob.
Which part was wrong, booboo? Be specific.
No, they don’t withdraw a knife that’s stuck in you at the hospital?
No, relative and absolute values are the same?
So if someone is dying of cancer, and we don’t have the tools to cure it, palliative care is wrong? Thats what you’re saying?
We should let things stay completely terrible until we have the power to fix them immediately, in one fell swoop?
Thats child thinking, my man.
I mean, it’s telling that you’re actively refusing to take in new information.
Abolishing that prohibition was never going to happen in the 90s, especially not done by a liberal. That was never on the table.
So, if you’re saying DADT was bad, the only other option was doing nothing.
Dadt was an improvement in policy. It meant no one could investigate you on suspicion of being queer and them kick you out. You can imagine that before that many people were investigated for being queer just because.
