Bong Lover said:
Because you are saying overturning a policy that was clearly anti gay weakens gay rights because in a supposed alternate set of events, that you yourself say you believe would probably happen, would potentially set a stronger pro-gay presidence. As you see, this is comparing the known outcome of improving gay rights to a supposed outcome that potentially could be better for gays (in your opinion). Not only is the legal precedent you talk about purely speculative, no one knows what the outcome would be, but saying that a situation that patently imporved gay rights acctually hurt the same rights because of a potential unknown outcome is very speculative reasoning. It would be similar to telling someone who just won $2000 betting on horses that they lost money because you believe they would have won $6000 playing the roulette. In the off chance that you were asking about the 'would of' comment, it's called "would have" or alternatively "would've" where your butchering of the spelling originats from. |
Except the outcome already happened.
The Log Cabin Republicans WON their court case. The legal precedent was already set, and then was later overturned only because Obama appealed and got rid of DADT before the appeal was heard.
Had he did neither of those things, precedent would of been set.
So no, it's more like saying someone would of won $6,000 had not someone else come in, took their winning sand dropped it down to $2000.
