Senate Republicans Block Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’

Politics • Views: 3,228

Democrats failed to get enough votes to break the GOP filibuster in the Senate, and the National Defense Authorization Act which would have repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will not move forward to the debate stage.

The right has another objection to the bill: the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they enlist in the military or complete higher education.

So we have both homophobia and xenophobia in play here — too much phobia to overcome, apparently.

Jump to bottom

243 comments
1 Mark Pennington  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:34:36pm

Stupid fucking procedural gamesmanship.

2 Kragar  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:35:47pm

‘Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat’

Youtube Video
3 Lidane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:38:29pm

People just need to get over it already. Gays are openly serving in the military. They have been for ages.

I’m so sick of this kind of socon douchebaggery. Assholes, all of them.

4 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:38:46pm

When is the Dream Act being voted on?

This will be super interesting to see how McCain votes on this one.

5 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:39:00pm

It only takes one single senator to block ANY legislation. One.

Remember that next time you feel tempted to assert that the Democrats have “control” of congress.

6 Sol Berdinowitz  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:39:19pm

It is only going to get worse when the GOP picks up seats in the mid-term…at which they will start attacking Obama as a “do-nothing president”.

7 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:40:56pm

re: #4 marjoriemoon

they’re filibustering even bringing it to the floor so they can continue to be cowards and play games.

8 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:41:23pm

re: #6 ralphieboy

It is only going to get worse when the GOP picks up seats in the mid-term…at which they will start attacking Obama as a “do-nothing president”.

Oh the irony.

And the media will completely fail to educate our increasingly mentally disabled electorate as to the role of the senate in the legislative process. It is Waterloo, indeed, but it isn’t Obama’s. it’s America’s.

9 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:41:30pm

And yes, I know the GOP’s procedural excuse for blocking this is that they weren’t allowed to make enough amendments to the bill, but they’ve already made the real reasons extremely clear.

10 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:42:10pm

re: #6 ralphieboy

It is only going to get worse when the GOP picks up seats in the mid-term…at which they will start attacking Obama as a “do-nothing president”.

I’m not so sure about that. I’m guessing they won’t pick up many, if any.

YEA I SAID IT! UH HUH!

lol

11 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:42:23pm

Let’s not forget they also, by blocking votes on this, blocked a vote on military funding and we’re never ever supposed to not fund the troops.

12 elizajane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:42:33pm

re: #6 ralphieboy

It is only going to get worse when the GOP picks up seats in the mid-term…at which they will start attacking Obama as a “do-nothing president”.

How much worse can it get?

The headlines are “DADT Repeal Fails in Senate,” because winning a majority of votes is still failure in the U.S. Senate.

What a way to run a country.

13 Lidane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:43:14pm

re: #6 ralphieboy

It is only going to get worse when the GOP picks up seats in the mid-term…at which they will start attacking Obama as a “do-nothing president”.

It’s Clinton in ‘94 all over again. The GOP are in full-on hysteria mode (this time with bonus racism and xenophobia!), they’re going to try and turn Obama into a do-nothing, and they’re going to either seriously overreach or piss off the electorate by spending all their time investigating/blocking everything instead of making a case for why they should be back in the White House.

At this rate, the end result will also be the same. Clinton won a second term, and so could Obama, if the GOP keep going at the rate they’re going.

14 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:43:20pm

re: #9 Charles

to hear some of em the reason they didn’t vote was to give the DoD commission more time. In other words to protect their sorry asses from having to take a stand one way or the other.

15 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:43:22pm

re: #11 Dreggas

Let’s not forget they also, by blocking votes on this, blocked a vote on military funding and we’re never ever supposed to not fund the troops.

Can we question their patriotism now?

(Favorite line used against the Dems for 8 years.)

16 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:44:11pm

re: #15 marjoriemoon

Given how they’ve behaved I’ve questioned their patriotism for a long time now.

17 Varek Raith  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:44:31pm

Why are the Army brass so afraid of gays?
/rhetorical

18 Lidane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:44:45pm

re: #16 Dreggas

Given how they’ve behaved I’ve questioned their patriotism for a long time now.

Yeah, this. I’ve been questioning their patriotism for ages.

19 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:45:03pm

re: #13 Lidane

It’s Clinton in ‘94 all over again. The GOP are in full-on hysteria mode (this time with bonus racism and xenophobia!), they’re going to try and turn Obama into a do-nothing, and they’re going to either seriously overreach or piss off the electorate by spending all their time investigating/blocking everything instead of making a case for why they should be back in the White House.

At this rate, the end result will also be the same. Clinton won a second term, and so could Obama, if the GOP keep going at the rate they’re going.

If the GOP gets enough votes to do so, they will begin impeachment proceedings against Obama. It’s a virtual certainty.

20 CuriousLurker  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:45:33pm

re: #13 Lidane

That’s pretty much what Clinton said on Sunday.

21 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:45:50pm

Greasy goddamned pieces of trash.

22 bluecheese  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:47:45pm

obligitory

Youtube Video
23 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:47:53pm

If the DNC had any balls at all, they would make the GOP actually filibuster. For weeks. I won’t hold my breath.

24 Nemesis6  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:48:38pm

The Republicans are kind of like trolls. One moment they’ll be angry at the “mudmen”, for stealin’ they jerbs. The next, they’ll be angry at the sign-waving, bible-hating, Godless heathen homosexuals. If you disagree, you’re a queer-supporting homo-terrorist.

Like always, any attempt at engaging the troll in dialogue or meaningful discussion will, ultimately, end in remorse and annoyance. I think the difference between them is that trolls do it “for the lulz”, Republicans do it for Jesus. Hmmm…

25 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:48:42pm

re: #19 Fozzie Bear

If the GOP gets enough votes to do so, they will begin impeachment proceedings against Obama. It’s a virtual certainty.

For what?

Don’t make me use the FU defense!

26 CuriousLurker  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:49:19pm

BBL

27 Stanley Sea  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:49:40pm

Cannot WAIT till all these old coots are gone.

28 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:49:45pm

re: #25 marjoriemoon

For what?

Don’t make me use the FU defense!

They’ll find something, and if they don’t, they’ll just make something up. Remember Vince Foster? It didn’t stick, so they went with plan B: blowjobs.

29 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:50:34pm

re: #27 Stanley Sea

Cannot WAIT till all these old coots are gone.

They have plenty of equally opportunistic young coots to replace them.

30 Kragar  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:51:04pm

re: #29 Fozzie Bear

They have plenty of equally opportunistic young coots to replace them.

But she’s down 15 points right now.

31 Killgore Trout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:51:14pm

Time for Weiner…

Youtube Video
32 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:51:18pm

re: #27 Stanley Sea

Cannot WAIT till all these old coots are gone.

There’s some icky young coots right behind them :(

33 Major Tom  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:51:34pm

Where are the ‘log cabin’ republicans on this one? …and why do they exist at all?

34 Kragar  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:52:01pm

re: #33 Major Tom

Where are the ‘log cabin’ republicans on this one? …and why do they exist at all?

Weed.

35 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:52:53pm

re: #31 Killgore Trout

Time for Weiner…

[Video]

The closest we have yet come to Mr. Smith going to Washington.

36 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:54:52pm

re: #33 Major Tom

Where are the ‘log cabin’ republicans on this one? …and why do they exist at all?

The front page of their website indicates they supported DADT. All I can think of is… duh?

I know this is probably rude, but how a gay person or Black person can vote Republican is beyond me.

37 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:55:37pm

re: #36 marjoriemoon

The front page of their website indicates they supported DADT. All I can think of is… duh?

I know this is probably rude, but how a gay person or Black person can vote Republican is beyond me.

Stupidity. It explains a lot.

38 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:55:47pm

re: #36 marjoriemoon

The front page of their website indicates they supported DADT. All I can think of is… duh?

I know this is probably rude, but how a gay person or Black person can vote Republican is beyond me.

Ooo I’m sorry, I meant REPEALING DADT.

39 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:56:58pm

More procedural games and worthy legislation gets stuck in procedural hell in the process.

That includes the Zadroga 9/11 Ground Zero worker legislation (which was the source of the Weiner rant posted above).

Democrats deserve the scorn for attaching DADT and the immigration bills to the defense bill (which would have ordinarily passed without much notice). GOP deserves scorn for blocking the repeal of DADT and the immigration provision.

40 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 12:59:29pm

re: #39 lawhawk

More procedural games and worthy legislation gets stuck in procedural hell in the process.

That includes the Zadroga 9/11 Ground Zero worker legislation (which was the source of the Weiner rant posted above).

Democrats deserve the scorn for attaching DADT and the immigration bills to the defense bill (which would have ordinarily passed without much notice). GOP deserves scorn for blocking the repeal of DADT and the immigration provision.

The Dream Act was part of the defense bill?

41 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:00:05pm

re: #39 lawhawk

This is the inevitable result of a legislative body where a minority as small as a single person has an absolute veto over any and all legislation. it really doesn’t matter what the DNC does, they won’t get anything passed that the GOP doesn’t like.

42 Major Tom  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:00:13pm

I assumed they supported repeal, I would have hoped they would have been doing whatever possible to pressure the more moderate GOPers to vote in favor of repeal… But I guess there was no one left to call.

43 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:00:28pm

re: #39 lawhawk

And the Magical Balance Fairy dances.

44 Gus  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:00:51pm

The GOP. The party of liberty and individualism.

/

45 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:01:30pm

re: #44 Gus 802

* offer only valid for the right sort of individuals, who conform.

46 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:02:22pm

re: #39 lawhawk

More procedural games and worthy legislation gets stuck in procedural hell in the process.

That includes the Zadroga 9/11 Ground Zero worker legislation (which was the source of the Weiner rant posted above).

Democrats deserve the scorn for attaching DADT and the immigration bills to the defense bill (which would have ordinarily passed without much notice). GOP deserves scorn for blocking the repeal of DADT and the immigration provision.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.
Both sides are playing fuck-fuck.

47 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:03:27pm

Honestly, the solution to this is to just make the GOP filibuster indefinitely. Actually make them stand up there and read Moby Dick to us, then use that news cycle to drive home the point that the GOP isn’t taking the business of the nation seriously. Rinse and repeat.

It’s a shame the DNC has no fucking balls.

48 elizajane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:03:29pm

re: #36 marjoriemoon

The front page of their website indicates they supported DADT. All I can think of is… duh?

I know this is probably rude, but how a gay person or Black person can vote Republican is beyond me.

Check out the new add from Sarah Palin’s PAC: this time they did manage to get a shot of ONE non-white person standing and smiling at one of her rallies.

It is not clear, however, whether the man is laughing with her, or at her.

politico.com

49 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:04:01pm

re: #46 Ericus58

^^^
This.
Both sides are playing fuck-fuck.

Do you object to the DREAM act, or any other provision of the bill, specifically?

50 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:04:13pm

re: #40 marjoriemoon

The Dream Act was part of the defense bill?

It’s currently being debated on CSPAN-2. No idea when voting will take place though.

51 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:04:16pm

re: #43 Obdicut

And the Magical Balance Fairy dances.

For pointing out that neither side is about accomplishing squat?
Hardly.

52 Major Tom  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:04:24pm

How is DADT not applicable to the defense bill? It is about the military, how is it not a defense issue?

53 lawhawk  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:05:02pm

re: #43 Obdicut

So you think that the Democrats are blameless here? Sorry, but I think that they were playing procedural games too. They wanted to bring this up to show that the GOP is a bunch of bigots (and they got their desired result), but if they wanted to pass the underlying bill without amendments, they could have gotten bipartisan support.

Such is the way Congress has always done business. Both sides of the aisle have used the rules to their advantage to push legislation and their agendas.

That’s not magical fairy balance. That’s the history of Congress.

54 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:05:18pm

re: #51 Ericus58

For pointing out that neither side is about accomplishing squat?
Hardly.

It only takes one side to ensure that squat is accomplished. Actually, it only takes one senator. Shall I explain the concept of a “filibuster” to you, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

55 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:06:19pm

re: #39 lawhawk

Once upon a time, this country was led by simple haberdashers who had the moral fortitude to order desegregation in the military, the alleged political consequences be damned.

Where are our leaders today? The Dems don’t have the stones to take a formal stance on the subject and push it through as a stand-alone bill and the Repubs are too scared of the reactionary religious right that is cannibalizing their party to stand up for the individual rights in which conservatives are supposed to believe.

56 DaddyG  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:06:29pm

re: #36 marjoriemoon

The front page of their website indicates they supported DADT. All I can think of is… duh?

I know this is probably rude, but how a gay person or Black person can vote Republican is beyond me.

Do you mean in the last election or now that the GOP has thrown them all under the bus for the benefit of the socons? /

57 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:06:38pm

re: #49 Fozzie Bear

Do you object to the DREAM act, or any other provision of the bill, specifically?

Fozzie, why on earth would you ask that of me? Seriously.
Have I EVER espoused that position?

And everyone here knows quite well my position on DADT.
That is, if you’ve paid attention.

No, both parties are just dancing. And there’s too much at stake for this.

58 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:07:18pm

DADT needs to be repealed.

And anyone who enlists in our military OUGHT to have a citizenship track.

But how does the education part work?

59 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:07:52pm

re: #57 Ericus58

Fozzie, why on earth would you ask that of me? Seriously.
Have I EVER espoused that position?

And everyone here knows quite well my position on DADT.
That is, if you’ve paid attention.

No, both parties are just dancing. And there’s too much at stake for this.

Well, if you take the position that coupling the repeal of DADT with other legislation is a craven political maneuver, then surely, there must be some aspect of the bill to which you object? If there isn’t, then what’s the problem?

60 Gus  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:07:53pm

The vote was 56 to 43, with Democrats falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and take up the bill. The Arkansas Democrats, Senators Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor, sided with all 40 Republicans present in opposing debate. Mr. Reid switched his vote to no at the last minute, a procedural maneuver that allows him to call for a revote.

61 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:07:55pm

re: #54 Fozzie Bear

It only takes one side to ensure that squat is accomplished. Actually, it only takes one senator. Shall I explain the concept of a “filibuster” to you, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

You really are in a mood.
Stop poking.

62 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:19pm

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

If only it was truly so that neither party can ram through legislation that the other party doesn’t really like. Then each party might — gasp!! — have to compromise and find intelligent rather than ideological solutions to this country’s very real problems.

63 Major Tom  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:26pm

56 votes in favor is not a majority. Apparently. re: #47 Fozzie Bear


I agree.. don’t just assume the filibuster is there… Make them read the freakin phone book. Make them earn their paycheck. I say, Bring out the cots.

64 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:30pm

re: #39 lawhawk

More procedural games and worthy legislation gets stuck in procedural hell in the process.

That includes the Zadroga 9/11 Ground Zero worker legislation (which was the source of the Weiner rant posted above).

Democrats deserve the scorn for attaching DADT and the immigration bills to the defense bill (which would have ordinarily passed without much notice). GOP deserves scorn for blocking the repeal of DADT and the immigration provision.

The original bill was put out in 2001 although not called the Dream Act.

Durbin had two Republican sponsors to tack it on to the defense bill.

en.wikipedia.org

65 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:32pm

re: #53 lawhawk

So you think that the Democrats are blameless here?

In terms of blocking DADT? Yes. They’re not blocking it. The GOP are.

but if they wanted to pass the underlying bill without amendments, they could have gotten bipartisan support.

Sure, man. Whatever. In terms of blocking DADT? The GOP are being bigoted fuckers. Fuckers who’s fuckery will not be forgotten by the new generation, who are not bigoted against gays.

It’s shocking to me with what thoroughness and precision the GOP are making sure new generations of voters associate them with bigotry and divisiveness.


Such is the way Congress has always done business. Both sides of the aisle have used the rules to their advantage to push legislation and their agendas.

And the GOP agenda, here, is denying rights to gay people. Treating them as second class citizens. For no sane or rational reason at all. Only pandering to social conservatism and bigotry.

66 Gus  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:33pm

re: #60 Gus 802

Arkansas is the “birthplace” of DADT.

[cough]

67 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:36pm

re: #58 reine.de.tout

DADT needs to be repealed.

And anyone who enlists in our military OUGHT to have a citizenship track.

But how does the education part work?

Higher degrees and/or military service allow an expedited path to citizenship. That’s the gist of the DREAM act.

68 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:08:58pm

re: #53 lawhawk

So you think that the Democrats are blameless here? Sorry, but I think that they were playing procedural games too. They wanted to bring this up to show that the GOP is a bunch of bigots (and they got their desired result), but if they wanted to pass the underlying bill without amendments, they could have gotten bipartisan support.

Such is the way Congress has always done business. Both sides of the aisle have used the rules to their advantage to push legislation and their agendas.

That’s not magical fairy balance. That’s the history of Congress.

Yes.
Thank you.
Applies also to state legislatures.

69 Gus  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:09:54pm

If you’re gay you can’t get married.
If you’re gay you can’t serve in the military.

What else is there?

70 Gus  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:10:09pm

Are we living in China or the USA?

71 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:10:36pm

re: #64 marjoriemoon

The original bill was put out in 2001 although not called the Dream Act.

Durbin had two Republican sponsors to tack it on to the defense bill.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Exactly. And here in this thread we have people blaming the DNC for attaching the DREAM act. Are you all starting to get how the GOP game is played?

72 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:10:48pm

re: #48 elizajane

Check out the new add from Sarah Palin’s PAC: this time they did manage to get a shot of ONE non-white person standing and smiling at one of her rallies.

It is not clear, however, whether the man is laughing with her, or at her.

[Link: www.politico.com…]

I missed him lol

73 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:11:24pm

re: #58 reine.de.tout

DADT needs to be repealed.

And anyone who enlists in our military OUGHT to have a citizenship track.

But how does the education part work?

I have a dog in the fight for the DREAM Act. The shorter version for the education part is as follows (IIRC):

If you were under a certain age when you came to the US. And have stayed in the US. And are currently under 30. And if you go to college and then graduate college (or have already gotten your degree), then you are eligible to stay in the US and work towards citizenship.

That’s the entirety of the DREAM Act for the education part.

74 Kragar  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:11:45pm

re: #69 Gus 802

If you’re gay you can’t get married.
If you’re gay you can’t serve in the military.

What else is there?

If you’re gay, you can’t pay taxes.

Oh wait, you do, but you can’t qualify for many of the benefits the rest of us get.

75 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:11:50pm

re: #59 Fozzie Bear

Well, if you take the position that coupling the repeal of DADT with other legislation is a craven political maneuver, then surely, there must be some aspect of the bill to which you object? If there isn’t, then what’s the problem?

What is your malfunction?
Seriously, are you just spoiling for a spat because I feel both sides are culpable?

76 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:12:08pm

re: #69 Gus 802

Well, marriage carries a whole host of rights with it. For a friend of mine, it was “If you’re gay, you can’t claim your partner’s possessions after he’s killed in a car crash and you can’t be directly informed of what happened but have to ask the funeral director.”

A lot of states have no protection for being fired for sexual orientation. Most of them, I believe, you can be fired for being gay.

77 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:12:32pm

re: #67 Fozzie Bear

Higher degrees and/or military service allow an expedited path to citizenship. That’s the gist of the DREAM act.

Well, I got the gist.
What I’m wondering is how those degrees are obtained?
I don’t care one way or the other if someone gets a degree the same way I’m seeing to it my daughter is getting her degree.
But if the DREAM act allows (or requires) US or state government subsidizing of that degree for a non-citizen, more so than what is available to citizens, I have a problem.

And that’s what’s not clear to me; I’ve read all sorts of things, this and that and I can’t make heads or tails of it all.

78 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:13:13pm

re: #73 bloodstar

I have a dog in the fight for the DREAM Act. The shorter version for the education part is as follows (IIRC):

If you were under a certain age when you came to the US. And have stayed in the US. And are currently under 30. And if you go to college and then graduate college (or have already gotten your degree), then you are eligible to stay in the US and work towards citizenship.

That’s the entirety of the DREAM Act for the education part.

OK, if that’s it, sounds OK to me.

79 Gus  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:14:26pm

re: #74 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

re: #76 Obdicut

Gay are not granted the same rights as others then. They are not granted equal protection under the law. We are effectively looking at Federal sanctions against being homosexual. If one is gay they do not enjoy full rights.

80 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:14:34pm

re: #75 Ericus58

What is your malfunction?
Seriously, are you just spoiling for a spat because I feel both sides are culpable?

Actually, I am irritated because you apply blame to “all sides” in a magically balance-fairylike manner, when this is a simple issue of civil rights. DADT is fucking morally wrong, and it’s not “both sides” blocking it’s repeal. It is VERY clearly the GOP.

81 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:14:36pm

re: #58 reine.de.tout

DADT needs to be repealed.

And anyone who enlists in our military OUGHT to have a citizenship track.

But how does the education part work?

Maybe they’ll have better luck if they tack it onto an education bill.

82 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:14:44pm

re: #77 reine.de.tout

But if the DREAM act allows (or requires) US or state government subsidizing of that degree for a non-citizen, more so than what is available to citizens

It doesn’t. At all.

They’re not eligible for Pell grants. They don’t get any more than citizens. They get less.

83 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:15:01pm

re: #77 reine.de.tout

Well, I got the gist.
What I’m wondering is how those degrees are obtained?
I don’t care one way or the other if someone gets a degree the same way I’m seeing to it my daughter is getting her degree.
But if the DREAM act allows (or requires) US or state government subsidizing of that degree for a non-citizen, more so than what is available to citizens, I have a problem.

And that’s what’s not clear to me; I’ve read all sorts of things, this and that and I can’t make heads or tails of it all.

That’s a good question, and to my knowledge, the DREAM Act neither prohibits nor forces a state to give in-state tuition for children. I believe that remains soley a state decision.

84 celticdragon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:15:18pm

re: #19 Fozzie Bear

If the GOP gets enough votes to do so, they will begin impeachment proceedings against Obama. It’s a virtual certainty.

I agree. I put an impeachment vote at better than 50%. The GOP base metrics all point to some form of coup de’tat.

85 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:15:42pm

re: #83 bloodstar

Yep. Leaves it up to the states.

86 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:16:13pm

re: #82 Obdicut

It doesn’t. At all.

They’re not eligible for Pell grants. They don’t get any more than citizens. They get less.

OK.
As I said, I’ve read all sorts of things, and can’t make heads or tails of what the “education” part involves.

I’ve got no problem with someone being accepted into a college here and getting an education, citizen or no.

87 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:17:34pm

re: #82 Obdicut

It doesn’t. At all.

They’re not eligible for Pell grants. They don’t get any more than citizens. They get less.

re: #83 bloodstar

That’s a good question, and to my knowledge, the DREAM Act neither prohibits nor forces a state to give in-state tuition for children. I believe that remains soley a state decision.


AHA!
OK, these 2 together answer my question.
Thanks!

88 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:17:59pm

re: #36 marjoriemoon

I know this is probably rude, but how a gay person or Black person can vote Republican is beyond me.

Now Fox News and Rush Limbaugh will call you racist and homophobic for saying such a thing. How dare you lump all blacks and gays into one category, as if none of them care about the inheritance tax or tort reform!

89 Lidane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:18:30pm

re: #19 Fozzie Bear

If the GOP gets enough votes to do so, they will begin impeachment proceedings against Obama. It’s a virtual certainty.

I’d love to see them do it. That’s the fastest way to make themselves utterly irrelevant as a national party.

There are no grounds for impeachment unless you believe the birther idiots. And in an economy where people have lost their jobs and their homes, they’re going to have very little patience for anyone who wastes time trying to impeach the President rather than trying to fix the problems we’re having.

Also, do the GOP really want President Biden that badly?

90 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:18:40pm

re: #86 reine.de.tout

It means they can apply for non-federal scholarships, they can get in-state tuition if that state makes provision for them to do so.

They can’t get any federal student grants during probationary period. And after that period, they’re at first only granted permanent residency. I’m uncertain of the path from residency to citizenship.

91 Lidane  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:20:11pm

re: #47 Fozzie Bear

Honestly, the solution to this is to just make the GOP filibuster indefinitely.

I wish. Just pull the trigger and let them filibuster endlessly, tying up all the government’s business over gays in the military. See what happens in November then.

92 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:20:23pm

re: #39 lawhawk

More procedural games and worthy legislation gets stuck in procedural hell in the process.

That includes the Zadroga 9/11 Ground Zero worker legislation (which was the source of the Weiner rant posted above).

Democrats deserve the scorn for attaching DADT and the immigration bills to the defense bill (which would have ordinarily passed without much notice). GOP deserves scorn for blocking the repeal of DADT and the immigration provision.

DADT and the Dream Act are both directly related to military recruitment and military funding. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both said so; and they both said they support both those bills. It’s not some fringey add-on.

93 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:20:43pm

re: #71 Fozzie Bear

Exactly. And here in this thread we have people blaming the DNC for attaching the DREAM act. Are you all starting to get how the GOP game is played?

At this point, it does seem pretty bipartisan. From the wiki history of the bill:

A very similar version of the bill, though never called the “DREAM Act”, was introduced during the 107th Congress in 2001, as H.R.1918 and S.1291 in the House and Senate respectively. It has been introduced in both the Senate (as the “DREAM Act”) and the House (as the “American Dream Act”) at various times. In the Senate: S.1545 (108th Congress), S.2075 (109th Congress), S.774 (110th Congress), and S.2205 (110th Congress). In the House: H.R.1684 (108th Congress), H.R.5131 (109th Congress), and H.R.1275 (110th Congress).

The text of the bill was also placed in various other failed immigration-related bills, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348). With the failure of the “comprehensive reform” bills, Richard Durbin, the chief proponent of the DREAM Act in the Senate, made its passage a top priority for 2007.[18][19]

In September 2007, Richard Durbin filed to place the DREAM Act as an amendment to the 2008 Department of Defense Authorization Bill (S. 2919). However, three key points were commonly cited in opposition to the DREAM Act. First, the misconception that the bill required states to give in-state tuition to the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act when it only removed ambiguity in a state’s right to offer in-state to certain immigrant students, states would not be forced to offer in-state tuition.[20] Second, the legislation did not include an age cap. Finally, the amendment was regarded by opponents as non-germane to defense matters despite the military provision.

In light of the criticism, Richard Durbin tabled the amendment in favor of a rewritten DREAM Act amendment to the Defense Bill. In consideration of their opponents, all language regarding in-state tuition was removed from the amendment and an age cap of 30 was put in place for potential beneficiaries.[20] Military leaders embraced the bill, which included the promise of legal status to members of the military, as a means of boosting recruitment.[21] Nevertheless, the amendment was not brought up for a vote.

On October 18, Richard Durbin, along with Republican co-sponsors Sen. Charles Hagel and Sen. Richard Lugar, introduced the DREAM Act as S.2205. Though nearly identical to the revised amendment to the Defense Bill, opponents continued to cite previous arguments. In order to bring forth the DREAM Act for debate, a vote was scheduled on October 24 that would require a “filibuster proof” count of 60 yes votes, but this was not obtained.[22]

94 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:20:48pm

You know, AL Franken is growing on me. He’s speaking on DADT and moving onto the DREAM Act and every time I hear him speak, I can’t help but be impressed by his ability to explain and express himself.

WIth that realization, I think I need a drink LOL

95 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:21:21pm

re: #80 Fozzie Bear

Actually, I am irritated because you apply blame to “all sides” in a magically balance-fairylike manner, when this is a simple issue of civil rights. DADT is fucking morally wrong, and it’s not “both sides” blocking it’s repeal. It is VERY clearly the GOP.

Blocking repeal with the help of a couple of Dems, and blocking repeal of something put into place by a Democrat. Plus what lawhawk said, the Dems are playing procedural games with somebody’s civil rights. Such is life.

96 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:22:21pm

re: #47 Fozzie Bear

It’s a shame the DNC has no fucking balls.

In the interest of gender parity, let’s make the criticism about their lack of spine.

97 webevintage  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:22:50pm

re: #60 Gus 802

The vote was 56 to 43, with Democrats falling short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster and take up the bill. The Arkansas Democrats, Senators Blanche L. Lincoln and Mark Pryor, sided with all 40 Republicans present in opposing debate. Mr. Reid switched his vote to no at the last minute, a procedural maneuver that allows him to call for a revote.

I bet Mark Pryor’s father is so proud of him.
/

I know I’m ashamed that he and Blanche are my senators…but if not them then it will be some moronic GOP toady like John Boozman.

98 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:23:51pm

re: #95 reine.de.tout

DADT was not ‘put into place by a Democrat’ from nothing. It was an improvement, albeit a very flawed one, over the old policy of actively attempting to identify gays and kick them out of the military.

And yes, there are conservative Democrats. I don’t get how two of them equate to the entire GOP. That’s the magical part.

99 darthstar  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:24:27pm

Senate Republicans block Defense Authorization Bill - and our troops are but pawns in their political game.

100 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:24:53pm

re: #98 Obdicut

DADT was not ‘put into place by a Democrat’ from nothing. It was an improvement, albeit a very flawed one, over the old policy of actively attempting to identify gays and kick them out of the military.

And yes, there are conservative Democrats. I don’t get how two of them equate to the entire GOP. That’s the magical part.

*sigh*

OK.
If the Dems are exempt from ANY criticism at all here anymore, I would like to know.

I don’t think they are.
Others seem to think a LOT differently.

101 jamesfirecat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:25:00pm

re: #95 reine.de.tout

Blocking repeal with the help of a couple of Dems, and blocking repeal of something put into place by a Democrat. Plus what lawhawk said, the Dems are playing procedural games with somebody’s civil rights. Such is life.

This just in three (one for procedural reason) democrats voting against with 56 voting for is the same as all 41 Republicans voting against!

Sorry Reine but this comes across as MAJOR MBF for it.

And how are the democrats playing procedural games?

102 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:25:01pm

re: #80 Fozzie Bear

Actually, I am irritated because you apply blame to “all sides” in a magically balance-fairylike manner, when this is a simple issue of civil rights. DADT is fucking morally wrong, and it’s not “both sides” blocking it’s repeal. It is VERY clearly the GOP.

This is why I say both sides are just playin’ da game.

Take each issue on it’s own merits.
DADT? Make is so.
DREAM? You bet.
Military Funding? Gotta have it.
See? I’m all nice and fuzzy warm on the topics. But you knew that, right?

Why tie all three together in the same bill if you are all about “doing the will of the people”.
The Dem’s knew this by working the proposed legislation as such - and they got the GOP to bite.

Anyone that is for serious governance and results should be upset. Sure, blame the GOP more but don’t be blind to the Dem’s part either.

And unless you have me on video doing the “magically balance-fairylike manner” dance, then it’s all in your head.

103 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:25:51pm

re: #101 jamesfirecat

This just in three (one for procedural reason) democrats voting against with 56 voting for is the same as all 41 Republicans voting against!

Sorry Reine but this comes across as MAJOR MBF for it.

And how are the democrats playing procedural games?

I agreed with Lawhawk, he explains it better than I do (but of course, I’m a better target).
See Lawhawks:
re: #39 lawhawk

More procedural games and worthy legislation gets stuck in procedural hell in the process.

That includes the Zadroga 9/11 Ground Zero worker legislation (which was the source of the Weiner rant posted above).

Democrats deserve the scorn for attaching DADT and the immigration bills to the defense bill (which would have ordinarily passed without much notice). GOP deserves scorn for blocking the repeal of DADT and the immigration provision.

104 sffilk  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:26:06pm

Somehow reminding these “people” (and I use the term very loosely) that the first person to be injured in the most recent military activities in the Fertile Crescent was gay. He also lost at least one appendage. I’d like to see Senator McCain tell him that he (an American hero) should not be allowed to serve.

105 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:26:16pm

re: #94 bloodstar

You mean you weren’t drinking before Al Franken starting making sense?

/

106 jamesfirecat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:26:34pm

re: #103 reine.de.tout

I agreed with Lawhawk, he explains it better than I do (but of course, I’m a better target).
See Lawhawks:
re: #39 lawhawk

Except that we’ve already had the DoD say that both of these bills are valid military matters and so it’s reasonable for them to be attached to the defense bill….

107 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:26:45pm

re: #82 Obdicut

re: #83 bloodstar

I know the wiki isn’t the best for this, but you can get it on govtrack.us, also. I just haven’t looked it up.

Under the new DREAM Act, immigrants may qualify in part, by meeting the following requirements which have not been finalized by Congress:

* - Must be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time the Law is enacted
* - Must have arrived in the United States before the age of 16
* - Must have resided continuously in the United States for at least five (5) consecutive years since the date of their arrival
* - Must have graduated from a U.S. High School, or obtained a General Education Diploma GED
* - Must have “Good moral character”

Other benefits:
In addition to the temporary Residency, immigrant students who qualify would also be entitled to apply for student loans and work study, but would not be eligible for Pell educational grants.

Termination of benefits:
In certain circumstances, the immigrant may lose temporary immigration Residency. This may occur if the immigrant does not meet the educational or military service requirement within the six year time period or if they commit any crimes (other than those considered non-drug related misdemeanors) regardless of whether or not they have already been approved for permanent status at the end of their six years. If an immigrant is convicted of a major crime, or drug-related infraction, (except for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana) he or she would automatically lose the six year temporary residence status and be immediately subject to deportation.[27]
en.wikipedia.org

108 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:26:56pm

re: #100 reine.de.tout

*sigh*

OK.
If the Dems are exempt from ANY criticism at all here anymore, I would like to know.

I don’t think they are.
Others seem to think a LOT differently.

I have no idea what you’re talking about, Reine. I am perfectly willing to criticize Democrats. I do so often.

But in this case, two Democrats are blocking DADT. Forty Republicans are.

I object to the equation that 2 = 40. I always will.

109 HappyWarrior  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:29:30pm

So this is the “socialism” that the Senate GOP is fighting huh. Seriously I’ve said it before but there are many gay men and women out there who will make much better soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen than I ever would and it’s a crock of shit that they’re not allowed to serve openly. Many of our allies including hte Brits and Israelis allow gay men and women to serve openly. The Senate GOP needs to get in to the 21st century. And their anti immigrant shit is pathetic too. These are men and women who love their adoptive country so much that they’re willing to serve in its military. My distant cousin was a Czechoslovak citizen who fought and died for this country. People like that should be respected.

110 What, me worry?  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:29:44pm

re: #94 bloodstar

You know, AL Franken is growing on me. He’s speaking on DADT and moving onto the DREAM Act and every time I hear him speak, I can’t help but be impressed by his ability to explain and express himself.

WIth that realization, I think I need a drink LOL

Franken is brilliant, but I always see Stuart Smalley when I look at him.

… and that’s ok ….

111 sffilk  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:29:45pm

re: #17 Varek Raith

Why are the Army brass so afraid of gays?
/rhetorical

This might explain it, but from a Marine point of view:

lyricsbang.com

112 deranged cat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:33:12pm

btw, ive been following the DADT Trend on Twitter:
twitter.com

happy to see some yelling at the GOP and John McCain.

ps. (posted this on next thread, too)

113 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:33:17pm

re: #69 Gus 802

If you’re gay you can’t get married.
If you’re gay you can’t serve in the military.

What else is there?

If you’re not married, and not a veteran, then you’re not a good citizen and have no values and nobody should ever vote for you for anything.

(unless you’re an unmarried non-vet Republican, running against a married vet Democrat. In which case it’s incredibly bigoted for anybody to bring up marital status or military records as a campaign issue).

114 HappyWarrior  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:34:21pm

By the way are we going to see the Tea Partiers giving the GOP crap for this? If they really give a damn about keeping government out of people’s lives like they claim they do, they should be outraged at the Senate GOP for this crap. Instead I imagine many of them will accept this.

115 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:36:06pm

re: #114 HappyWarrior

By the way are we going to see the Tea Partiers giving the GOP crap for this? If they really give a damn about keeping government out of people’s lives like they claim they do, they should be outraged at the Senate GOP for this crap. Instead I imagine many of them will accept this.

if by “many” you mean “all” :D

116 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:37:02pm

re: #95 reine.de.tout

Blocking repeal with the help of a couple of Dems, and blocking repeal of something put into place by a Democrat. Plus what lawhawk said, the Dems are playing procedural games with somebody’s civil rights. Such is life.

Are you really going to try and elevate the idea that Democrats and Republicans are somehow equal on gay rights?

117 webevintage  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:37:19pm

I noticed that Blanche Lincoln is getting smacked around a bit for her vote today on her facebook page.

118 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:37:38pm

re: #108 Obdicut

I have no idea what you’re talking about, Reine. I am perfectly willing to criticize Democrats. I do so often.

But in this case, two Democrats are blocking DADT. Forty Republicans are.

I object to the equation that 2 = 40. I always will.

Fucking A, dude

Magical balance fairy’s like santa claus today, flying at the speed of light

119 jamesfirecat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:37:55pm

re: #115 WindUpBird

if by “many” you mean “all” :D

And by “accept” you mean “praise them for doing this” and “defending Americas Values.”

120 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:38:10pm

re: #90 Obdicut

It means they can apply for non-federal scholarships, they can get in-state tuition if that state makes provision for them to do so.

They can’t get any federal student grants during probationary period. And after that period, they’re at first only granted permanent residency. I’m uncertain of the path from residency to citizenship.

The usual path from green card to citizen is a waiting period, a written test, no criminal record, and then you can apply.

121 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:38:30pm

re: #119 jamesfirecat

And by “accept” you mean “praise them for doing this” and “defending Americas Values.”


VAL YOUUUUZZZZZZZZ

122 deranged cat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:39:02pm

re: #117 webevintage

I noticed that Blanche Lincoln is getting smacked around a bit for her vote today on her facebook page.

good.

123 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:39:47pm

re: #116 WindUpBird

Are you really going to try and elevate the idea that Democrats and Republicans are somehow equal on gay rights?

That’s not what Riene has said. Please don’t bait her.

124 HappyWarrior  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:39:56pm

re: #119 jamesfirecat

And by “accept” you mean “praise them for doing this” and “defending Americas Values.”

Heh pretty much what’s going to happen guys. I’m sick of this hypocritical bs. These people are the biggest liberty fakers of all time. They’re for indiivdual liberties only when it’s their liberties. If you’re a Muslim, Gay, or immigrant they don’t seem to give a shit.

125 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:40:17pm

re: #94 bloodstar

You know, AL Franken is growing on me. He’s speaking on DADT and moving onto the DREAM Act and every time I hear him speak, I can’t help but be impressed by his ability to explain and express himself.

WIth that realization, I think I need a drink LOL

Admit it, you’ve got a wonk fetish.

126 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:40:57pm

re: #98 Obdicut

DADT was not ‘put into place by a Democrat’ from nothing. It was an improvement, albeit a very flawed one, over the old policy of actively attempting to identify gays and kick them out of the military.

And yes, there are conservative Democrats. I don’t get how two of them equate to the entire GOP. That’s the magical part.

that’s the great thing we forget about DADT, is that it was better than total witchhunts.

It’s like calling FDR a klansman because he had to pass social security in a state that didn’t allow it to cover women or minorities

127 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:42:33pm

re: #123 Ericus58

That’s not what Riene has said. Please don’t bait her.

Well, Ob actually did a better job than I would have in his response:


I have no idea what you’re talking about, Reine. I am perfectly willing to criticize Democrats. I do so often.

But in this case, two Democrats are blocking DADT. Forty Republicans are.

I object to the equation that 2 = 40. I always will.

Not a whole lot I can add to that

128 garhighway  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:42:57pm

re: #102 Ericus58

This is why I say both sides are just playin’ da game.

Take each issue on it’s own merits.
DADT? Make is so.
DREAM? You bet.
Military Funding? Gotta have it.
See? I’m all nice and fuzzy warm on the topics. But you knew that, right?

Why tie all three together in the same bill if you are all about “doing the will of the people”.
The Dem’s knew this by working the proposed legislation as such - and they got the GOP to bite.

Anyone that is for serious governance and results should be upset. Sure, blame the GOP more but don’t be blind to the Dem’s part either.

And unless you have me on video doing the “magically balance-fairylike manner” dance, then it’s all in your head.

So three things you like become one thing you don’t like when it’s one vote? Explain that to me, would you?

129 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:46:02pm

re: #128 garhighway

So three things you like become one thing you don’t like when it’s one vote? Explain that to me, would you?

The objection is just about who gets the credit? I don’t get it either, but whatever. Apparently, if your opponent tries to do something you agree with, you oppose them anyway, just because.

130 HappyWarrior  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:47:31pm

What I want to know is why does the GOP care if gay men and women serve openly in uniform. It hasn’t ruined the British or Israeli military so why would it ruin ours. I see Republicans who love to pat themselves on the backs for being strong supporters of Israel totally neglect the fact that gays serve openly in Israel and Israel has one of the most strong armies in the world.

131 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:49:22pm

re: #130 HappyWarrior

What I want to know is why does the GOP care if gay men and women serve openly in uniform. It hasn’t ruined the British or Israeli military so why would it ruin ours. I see Republicans who love to pat themselves on the backs for being strong supporters of Israel totally neglect the fact that gays serve openly in Israel and Israel has one of the most strong armies in the world.

I don’t think most of the GOP party higher-ups really give a shit one way or the other. This is red meat to the base, actual moral implications be damned.

132 HappyWarrior  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:51:56pm

re: #131 Fozzie Bear

I don’t think most of the GOP party higher-ups really give a shit one way or the other. This is red meat to the base, actual moral implications be damned.

I think you’re right about that but gosh it’s just so funny that these guys have acted like Obama’s taking way individual freedoms away and then they block this. Glad to see McCain’s getting a lot of shit for this. He likes to act like he’s in the middle on the issue but he’s as full of crap as the rest of them.

133 Decatur Deb  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:53:02pm

re: #104 sffilk

Somehow reminding these “people” (and I use the term very loosely) that the first person to be injured in the most recent military activities in the Fertile Crescent was gay. He also lost at least one appendage. I’d like to see Senator McCain tell him that he (an American hero) should not be allowed to serve.

They would have no trouble:

linktu.com

google.com

134 deranged cat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:53:58pm

oh, funny right wing twitter troll…

DanStlMo: The tide is turning #TCOT do not let up. We are the Majority and we are winning. tiny.cc #OCRA
135 122 Year Old Obama  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:55:18pm

BLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCKBLOCK

The current GOP, ladies and gentlemen.

136 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:55:41pm

re: #134 deranged cat

The poor idiots actually think they are a majority.

Being a majority of a minority doesn’t make you a majority of the whole.

137 HappyWarrior  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:55:58pm

re: #134 deranged cat

oh, funny right wing twitter troll…

Heh how are they the majority if they’re filibustering the bill? Dumbass haha.

138 deranged cat  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 1:57:20pm

i am very happy to see “senate republicans block DADT” or variations of that popping up more frequently on the twitter trend.

it’s nice to see the blame placed appropriately.
also satisfying to see some people go “SCREW YOU BLANCHE LINCOLN! SUCK MAH BALLZ” (paraphrased) occasionally!

139 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:00:25pm

re: #128 garhighway

So three things you like become one thing you don’t like when it’s one vote? Explain that to me, would you?

Have I EVER said I didn’t like the proposed legislation?
Why are some of you pushing that?

I Don’t.
Is that clear enough?

But I’m sticking to my opinion and belief that both sides are just playing the game.

140 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:02:56pm

re: #139 Ericus58

Have I EVER said I didn’t like the proposed legislation?
Why are some of you pushing that?

I Don’t.
Is that clear enough?

But I’m sticking to my opinion and belief that both sides are just playing the game.

Both sides are playing the game of 40 republicans and 2 democrats blocking perfectly reasonable legislation. Is that your position?

141 garhighway  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:04:22pm

re: #139 Ericus58

Have I EVER said I didn’t like the proposed legislation?
Why are some of you pushing that?

I Don’t.
Is that clear enough?

But I’m sticking to my opinion and belief that both sides are just playing the game.

Now I really AM confused. You don’t what? Support the bill? Support the filibuster?

I thought you were saying that you support each concept individually but not in a bundle. If I got that wrong, I’m sorry. Did I get it wrong?

142 Ericus58  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:07:39pm

re: #141 garhighway

Now I really AM confused. You don’t what? Support the bill? Support the filibuster?

I thought you were saying that you support each concept individually but not in a bundle. If I got that wrong, I’m sorry. Did I get it wrong?

I am reaching out with my hand to shake yours in a bi-partisan effort as a Moderate Republican in support of this bill.

We good?

143 garhighway  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:08:12pm

re: #142 Ericus58

I am reaching out with my hand to shake yours in a bi-partisan effort as a Moderate Republican in support of this bill.

We good?

yay!

144 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:16:58pm

re: #129 Fozzie Bear

I think the objection is in doing it in a way that the Dems had to have known was likely to cause all three to be rejected, instead of doing them individually. It’s about good governance and doing the will of the people, not putting petty b.s. political games ahead of doing what is right.

145 harlequinade  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:19:24pm

re: #144 sliv_the_eli

How is How is “putting 3 defense things together in a defense bill”

doing it in a way that the Dems had to have known was likely to cause all three to be rejected, instead of doing them individually. It’s about good governance and doing the will of the people, not putting petty b.s. political games ahead of doing what is right.

?

146 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:19:34pm

re: #144 sliv_the_eli

I really fail to see what the point of that is, unless you believe that the GOP members have no free will and just have to vote against DADT and the DREAM legislation that was largely Republican in nature.

I mean, right now, the GOP is going to vote against almost anything at all proposed by the Democrats. Should the Democrats just stop submitting anything?

147 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:25:37pm

re: #145 harlequinade

Because in today’s climate where the extreme right wing of the Republican Party is eviscerating what there was of the GOP’s moderate wing, and with mid-term elections only weeks away, the Dem leadership had to have known that the GOP would vote down the attempt to pass the DADT repeal or DREAM as virtually undebated add-ons to the appropriations bill, that’s why.

We send these clowns to Washington to debate and decide the important issues, not play petty political games, and, while the 46 Repubs and 3 Dems who voted as they did are to blame for their substantive vote, the Dem leadership is guilty of trying to score points in the polls instead of doing the right thing.

148 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:30:22pm

re: #146 Obdicut

Re: the first part of your comment, see my response to Harlequindae.

In response to your question, although I assume it to be rhetorical, my view is that they should propose and push legislation on its merits. They should also work with like-minded people across the aisle to overcome legitimate objections where they exist. And, no, that’s not being naive, it what some of our greatest representatives, like the late Sen. Pat Moynihan (D-NY) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and, yes, even Senator McCain, did on more than one occasion during long years of service to the public. That is what I expect of Dems when they are in the majority and of Repubs when they are in the majority. It is what I and everyone else have a right to expect as citizens and residents of this great republic.

149 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:36:45pm

re: #148 sliv_the_eli


I see your response. it doesn’t work as a response to what I said.

my view is that they should propose and push legislation on its merits.

Which is what they did, in this case. They proposed a defense bill. DADT is a defense issue. The DREAM act not only has defense components but was a bipartisan, largely Republican creation.

They should also work with like-minded people across the aisle to overcome legitimate objections where they exist.

What legitimate objections would those be? I haven’t seen a single one cited.

The Joint Chiefs recommend repeal of DADT. The DREAM act was bipartisan.

So what are these legitimate concerns?

150 harlequinade  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:46:31pm

re: #149 Obdicut

I see your response. it doesn’t work as a response to what I said.

Which is what they did, in this case. They proposed a defense bill. DADT is a defense issue. The DREAM act not only has defense components but was a bipartisan, largely Republican creation.

What legitimate objections would those be? I haven’t seen a single one cited.

The Joint Chiefs recommend repeal of DADT. The DREAM act was bipartisan.

So what are these legitimate concerns?

What he said.

And quoted - cos he said it so well.

151 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 2:54:00pm

re: #149 Obdicut

You’re confusing the two different issues covered in my post. The comments you are quoting were a response to your more generic “What should the Dems do?” question.

With respect to the specific legislation, I disagree with your fundamental suppositions that (1) the bill was a defense bill; and (2) that DADT repeal and DREAM are “defense” issues. As to the former, the bill in question was an appropriations bill, not a defense policy bill. As to the former, DADT is a social and liberty/non-discrimination issue, like the Civil Rights Act or ADA. DREAM is fundamentally an immigration measure.

And my objection remains to what I view as the Dem leadership’s cowardly way of handling the matters, which was designed to secure Republican opposition and not to pass two important and morally just pieces of social legislation. If the Dem leadership was interested in the substance of the two bills, they would have rammed it through, any objections be damned, just like they did with health care reform and the stimulus bill.

152 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:02:26pm

re: #151 sliv_the_eli

that DADT repeal and DREAM are “defense” issues.

DADT is an issue that only affects the military. As in, defense.

So I have no fucking clue what basis you have for denying it’s a defense issue.

Clear that up, would you?

153 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:03:04pm

re: #151 sliv_the_eli

Even if the Democrats had been united, they couldn’t have ‘rammed it through’.

You are not arguing honestly.

154 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:06:47pm

re: #69 Gus 802

If you’re gay you can’t get married.
If you’re gay you can’t serve in the military.

What else is there?

Adoption. Housing. Employment.

155 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:15:05pm

re: #152 Obdicut

Not sure I can be much clearer than that I view the repeal of DADT as a civil rights issue. That it happens to affect only the military is, in my view, secondary to the real issue. And either way, it is not an appropriations issue.

As for ramming through DADT reform, the Dem leadership has shown they are capable of pushing through legislation when they actually care about gettnig it passed rather than scoring cheap political points. But that would require that they actually care about passing the substantive reform and working to get enough Repub defectors to pass the bill, as they did with stimulus and health care reform.

Perhaps you are sufficiently satisfied with an empty gesture by the Dem leadership that is designed solely to place blame on Republicans and try to “save” the mid-term election. For my part, I would prefer to see our president take the lead on this important civil rights question and the Dem leadership do the legitimate legislative work necessary to prevent any Dem defections and to get a sufficient number of moderate Republicans (yes, they do exist) to join the cause and get the bill passed. Dem leaderhip gets no brownie points from me for what is by any objective measure a cheap political stunt, just as the Repubs lose points in my book for voting down an important defense appropriation rather than repeal DADT.

156 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:20:43pm

re: #155 sliv_the_eli

Not sure I can be much clearer than that I view the repeal of DADT as a civil rights issue.

You can be clear about why it is NOT a defense issue.

It is a civil rights issue. It is also a defense issue.

As for ramming through DADT reform, the Dem leadership has shown they are capable of pushing through legislation when they actually care about gettnig it passed rather than scoring cheap political points.

When GOP members are willing to break ranks.

You are attacking the Democrats for not having a filibuster-proof majority.

Perhaps you are sufficiently satisfied with an empty gesture by the Dem leadership that is designed solely to place blame on Republicans and try to “save” the mid-term election.

You obviously really want to view it in that manner and it doesn’t matter one whit what I say.

157 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:22:14pm

re: #155 sliv_the_eli

Basically, this is what you’re saying: If no GOP member is willing to be sane and vote for reasonable things like DADT and DREAM = Democrat’s fault.

DADT, a law about the military, is not a defense issue.

158 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:29:20pm

re: #156 Obdicut

“When GOP members are willing to break ranks”

I think that is where we part ways on the issue. I don’t view the Repubs as a monolithic entity; hell, just look at the infighting between RINO’s and Tea Partiers. When the Dems truly want to get something passed, they are able to get enough Repubs — or, as the wingnuts woudl say, RINO’s — to join them to get it passed.

Oh, and I don’t think it’s accurate to say I don’t give a whit what you say. We may disagree, but I care. If I did not , you would not exist and I would not “converse” with you on this board. Brooklyn rules.

159 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:33:08pm

re: #157 Obdicut

Wrong, again. Let me repeat, since you sometimes lose what I say in the desire to carry the argument. It is the fault of the Repubs and 3 Dems for voting “no” and the Dem leadership’s fault for doing this at a time and in a way that they knew would result in it not passing.

Sorry, but I don’t buy the line that the Dems are always good and the Repubs are always evil. There is fault here on both sides (even if not in equal amounts) and I have no compunction about placing blame where it belongs.

160 Basho  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:37:49pm

The ONLY thing this says about Republicans: They hate Americans. Whether you’re an educated, assimilated immigrant; or whether you’re serving in the military and may be putting your life on the line for Bush’s quagmires.

Kick these punks out of the country. They can live in Uganda and kill all the homosexuals they want.

161 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:47:24pm

re: #157 Obdicut

Basically, this is what you’re saying: If no GOP member is willing to be sane and vote for reasonable things like DADT and DREAM = Democrat’s fault.

DADT, a law about the military, is not a defense issue.

And what does the “military” have to say about it?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.

Gen. James Amos’ comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Amos told a Senate panel on Tuesday he was concerned that unit morale could suffer. He also said the shake up could become a distraction for forces busy fighting in Afghanistan.

google.com

I have no problem with openly gay soldiers serving in the military in any capacity. But, then again, I’ve never been in the military, I’m certainly not aware of all the in’s and out’s of military issues and such… but I suspect this man does.

162 garhighway  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:52:29pm

re: #158 sliv_the_eli

I don’t view the Repubs as a monolithic entity.

Really? How many Republicans voted for this?

The GOP has tremendous party discipline. Look in Roll Call and see the numbers. To deny that is to deny reality.

Hence my earlier point: there is no such thing in Congress as a “moderate Republican”.

163 Basho  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:57:02pm

It doesn’t matter what members of the military think. They’ll live with it like they’re living with blacks and women today. No other developed nation with openly gay members has troops who need to take Zoloft to boost their morale because they have a gay roommate. If anything, these bigoted morons are destroying team cohesion by their very bigotry.

164 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 3:58:18pm

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

As I already stated, the Joint Chiefs back repeal of DADT.

And the bill contains measures for a Pentagon review.

So why do you feel the need to share this particular general’s view, Walter, and present him as ‘the military’?

165 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:00:31pm

re: #159 sliv_the_eli

Dem leadership’s fault for doing this at a time and in a way that they knew would result in it not passing.

Exactly. If the Democrats can’t get a GOP member to break ranks, you blame the Democrats for that. You talk about ‘legitimate objections’ and then don’t provide any.

Combined with your bizarre insistence that DADT, a policy that only affects the military is not a defense issue, you are not arguing honestly.

166 Basho  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:04:32pm

So when can atheists openly serve in the military? Or did they stop forcing them to attend evangelical brainwashing events?

167 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:06:20pm

re: #166 Basho

Have read this?

online.wsj.com

Great article.


“He trusts God to keep him safe,” says RP2 Chute. “And I’m here just in case that doesn’t work out.”
168 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:07:08pm

re: #162 garhighway

That is like saying there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in Congress. Like someone said about one of my earlier posts, it suggests that the Republicans lack free will, which is not the case.

It is a reality of congressional politics that on occasion, the Republicans , like the Democrats, are able to secure party discipline on a particular vote. There are myriad reasons why each Senator votes the way he or she does, and they do not all necessarily coincide. Health care reform and stimulus passed because on those issues there were enough (and it does not take many) Repubs who did not view their interests as coinciding with party discipline.

As for DADT repeal, here is what AP reported:

“Initially, advocates had thought that Democrats might win the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP objections and advance the bill. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Maine Republican, was seen as a crucial vote because she supports overturning the ban.

But Collins ultimately sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that the bill shouldn’t advance because Republicans weren’t given sufficient chance to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.”

Seems to me there are “moderate Republicans” who might break party ranks if the issue was presented on a straight “up or down” vote. Now, if only the Dems could enforce their own party discipline on the issue, seems to me DADT would be history, as it should be.

But, to this observer, at least, that was not the point of today’s exercise.

169 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:09:28pm

re: #168 sliv_the_eli

It is a reality of congressional politics that on occasion, the Republicans , like the Democrats, are able to secure party discipline on a particular vote

It is not ‘on occasion’. It is now standard for the GOP. Even for bills that the Democrats have made many compromises on.

Seems to me there are “moderate Republicans” who might break party ranks if the issue was presented on a straight “up or down” vote.

You really have no clue what you’re talking about. The filibuster is to prevent a straight up or down vote.

170 garhighway  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:11:08pm

re: #168 sliv_the_eli

That is like saying there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat in Congress.

You cannot be serious.

Have you been paying attention? Do you observe the numbers of D’s that vote with R’s versus the other way around?

Could you at least do the tiniest little bit of research before you say stupid stuff like that?

171 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:15:24pm

*sighs* The United States still has a long way to go regarding civil rights (and yes, it’s still a better bet to live here than Iran or China, I get that).

172 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:21:11pm

re: #165 Obdicut

Um, no, I didn’t speak of “legitimate objections” to DADT repeal, nor did I suggest that any exist. My posts make my position on DADT repeal perfectly clear.

And, yes, I blame the Dem leadership for presenting this issue in a way that made it impossible for them even to get the vote of Republican Senators like Susan Collins who supports repeal of DADT. The Dems have almost a filibuster proof majorty in the Senate. If they really cared about this issue, they would have made sure to do it in a way where they get the one or two Republican votes they need.

But I guess in a world where all Repubs are evil and all Dems pure as the driven snow, that wouLd make me the one “arguing dishonestly”.

173 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:27:44pm

re: #172 sliv_the_eli

Not even going to acknowledge that your claim that some moderate Republicans would vote for it if it was an up-or-down vote looks insane in the face of the fact that what they voted against was actually bringing the bill to an up-or-down vote?

That’s the kind of thing I mean when I say you’re not arguing honestly.

174 palomino  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:30:36pm

Just like same sex marriage, this one requires patience…but the proponents of increased rights will surely win, eventually.

Large majorities of Americans support ending DADT. Republicans in the Senate show again how out of step they are with the public. But should that be any surprise in a party as homogeneous and ideologically rigid as the GOP?

And one more thing: the only group opposed is people aged 65+. As they pass on, the numbers move more in our favor. Just the cycle of life.

175 palomino  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:32:59pm

re: #161 Walter L. Newton

And what does the “military” have to say about it?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.

Gen. James Amos’ comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Amos told a Senate panel on Tuesday he was concerned that unit morale could suffer. He also said the shake up could become a distraction for forces busy fighting in Afghanistan.

[Link: www.google.com…]

I have no problem with openly gay soldiers serving in the military in any capacity. But, then again, I’ve never been in the military, I’m certainly not aware of all the in’s and out’s of military issues and such… but I suspect this man does.

As does Robert Gates, who wants DADT ended. It’s a relic of the past, discarded by most other “advanced” nations.

176 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:38:58pm

re: #169 Obdicut

OK, let’s do the arithmetic on this one.

How many Dems currently serve in the U.S. Senate? 57

How many Independents who typically vote with the Dems are in the Senate? 2

How many votes are needed to break a filibuster (or, more accurately, to invoke cloture)? 60

Assuming the 2 Independents vote with the Dems and all Dems vote to repeal DADT, how many Repubs do the Dems need to cross party lines in order to invoke cloture? Right, ONE.

Is there one Republican out there who supports repeal of DADT? You don’t have to trust my dishonest arguments. Read the APs article which candidly acknowledges that Senator Susan Collins of the evil Republican Party supports the repeal of DADT.

Now you tell me, does the math suggest that the Dems could secure the repeal of DADT if they really cared about the result? You know my view on the issue, but then again, what do I know? I can only count.

177 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:40:50pm

re: #176 sliv_the_eli

Is there one Republican out there who supports repeal of DADT? You don’t have to trust my dishonest arguments. Read the APs article which candidly acknowledges that Senator Susan Collins of the evil Republican Party supports the repeal of DADT.

So why did she block it coming to a vote?

178 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:44:14pm

re: #170 garhighway

I can assure you that I am aware of many instances in which Republicans vote with Dems and vice versa, even on major and controversial issues of the day. As for the number of representatives or senators of either party who cross party lines, it depends on the time, the issue and the circumstances of the particular vote. Asking “how many Republicans cross the aisle compared to Dems” or vice versa is a talking point, not an objective analysis of congressional politics.

179 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:45:42pm

re: #171 eclectic infidel

Equally troubling is the unwillingness of the civilian leadership to tell the military that it must end the discrimination. The haberdasher showed much greater political courage and moral leadership on this one than the Dems today.

180 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:52:53pm

re: #173 Obdicut

OK, at least now we are clear on the terms of reference. We disagree, however, on whether the Dems could have gotten a couple of Repub votes if they really cared about the issue, rather than scoring political points. As I noted in #176, they don’t need more than one or two Repub votes. On issues that the Dem leadership cared about, they came up with a strategy to get the votes. They could, and should have done it here. When you can’t get Susan Collins to vote for repeal of DADT, you really haven’t tried very hard.

Under different circumstances, I would be willing to consider the possiblity that the repeal was attached to the defense appropriations bill to give cover to moderate Republicans. However, the proffered reason for Sen. Collins’ vote suggests this would not be an accurate assumption to make.

To conclude — gotta go put the kids to bed — I think we should all have a right today to be ashamed of our Senate. Rather than put an end at long last to the legalized discrimination against homosexuals in the military, they are all busy playing election politics. At least we can dream of a better day.

Thanks as always, to those who engaged in the debate today. TTFN.

181 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:52:58pm

re: #178 sliv_the_eli

Asking “how many Republicans cross the aisle compared to Dems” or vice versa is a talking point, not an objective analysis of congressional politics.

How do you manage to say that with a straight face?

182 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:53:23pm

re: #180 sliv_the_eli

And you dodge the question.

You do not debate honestly.

183 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:54:32pm

Why didn’t GOP Senator Susan Collins vote for a straight up or down vote on DADT?

The Democrats didn’t try hard enough!

Yeah, that makes sense.

184 palomino  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:56:00pm

re: #148 sliv_the_eli

Re: the first part of your comment, see my response to Harlequindae.

In response to your question, although I assume it to be rhetorical, my view is that they should propose and push legislation on its merits. They should also work with like-minded people across the aisle to overcome legitimate objections where they exist. And, no, that’s not being naive, it what some of our greatest representatives, like the late Sen. Pat Moynihan (D-NY) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and, yes, even Senator McCain, did on more than one occasion during long years of service to the public. That is what I expect of Dems when they are in the majority and of Repubs when they are in the majority. It is what I and everyone else have a right to expect as citizens and residents of this great republic.

Of course the republicans aren’t all evil. But they did just vote unanimously against a bill that includes a civil rights provision now supported by a large majority of Americans. So not evil, but wrong and behind the times.

I agree that the Dems screwed this up in the way they handled it, and should have worked more with the handful of moderate republicans. But do you think this situation will be better after the gop gets one or both houses of Congress? Will they behave like Kennedy, Moynihan, or even the pre-2008 McCain? I wouldn’t bet on it.

185 mich-again  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 4:58:18pm

I say the Democrats should make the GOP actually fillibuster instead of just caving in to the threat of a fillibuster. Why not make one Republican after another get up and yap and yap about nothing all day and all night long while America looks on. How long would they actually be able to hold the Senate hostage by trotting out a nonstop parade of stupid people making stupid speeches 24/7. I think the GOP would make themselves look realy idiotic in the process.

186 Stanley Sea  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:01:21pm

This is what I will add to the argument

Image: 38410_145774985435624_100000093711432_420863_4539667_n.jpg

187 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:04:50pm

re: #182 Obdicut

Here is what I would do (at least in genearlized terms) if the Dem leadership asked me. I would draft and move a bill through the Senate that does nothing except repeal DADT. I would use my party’s majorities on the committees to move it to the floor without trying to limit the opportunity to offer amendments or doing anything else that the Repubs could claim trampled on the rights of the minority party int he Senate.

I would do all of this with as much publicity as possible, including calling upon my party leader, who also happens to be the commander in chief of the armed forces and the first African-American elected President of the United States, to lead the charge in pushing this as an important piece of civil rights legislation.

And in doing so, I would force the Repubs to choose between morality and immorality, justice and injustice, equality and discrimination. At the same time, I would present the Dems as the party that truly stands and unites behind freedom and equality.

Of course, I would also have done this long ago, rather than a few weeks before an election in which it appears the Dems may lose their large (if not their outright) majorities in one or both houses of Congress, so that my fellow Dems would not be afraid that if they voted for the measure, they would lose the upcoming election.

Had it been done this way, I suspect Susan Collins votes for repeal and the Dems who broke ranks toe the party line instead. Then you have a filibuster proof majority.

188 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:08:02pm

re: #184 palomino

I agree with your assessment entirely. Repubs were absolutely wrong to vote as they did on this one. Unfortunately, the Dems screwed the pooch on this one as well, and the result may well be that the Franken-law known as DADT will remain the law of the land for some time to come. And that is too long.

189 sliv_the_eli  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:09:13pm

re: #186 Stanley Sea

And that, IMHO, ends the argument. Good night all.

190 RogueOne  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:19:33pm

There seems to be a lot of excuse making going on in this thread. 5 months ago the house was able to get a few members of the republican party to vote to repeal DADT so why couldn’t the Senate? If Dems wanted DADT to pass they would have brought it up in a separate bill but they didn’t because they’re more interested in a desperate attempt to drum up support before an election where they’re about to take a beating.

Attaching the Dream Act to a defense bill? Puh-lease. Even Lugar, an incredibly moderate co-signer of the bill couldn’t vote for this defense budget. What a waste. Granted, repubs aren’t going out of their way to be helpful but don’t give the dems a pass for not getting shit accomplished when they absolutely could.

Incidentally for those that don’t know, this bill wouldn’t have repealed DADT today. According to Reid it would have gone into effect “if the president, the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs chairman certify that an internal study concluded that repeal would not adversely impact troop readiness or morale.”

politico.com

191 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:30:22pm

re: #116 WindUpBird

Are you really going to try and elevate the idea that Democrats and Republicans are somehow equal on gay rights?

No, I did not say that Rs and Ds are EQUAL ON GAY RIGHTS.

I said the Dems are not above criticism, and that it seems some think they are. Those are the only points I was trying to make.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Try it.
Or, continue to beat on me for something I NEVER said; plant that little seed of doubt, WUB, that maybe Reine is nuts and can’t see the forest for the trees. Plant those seeds well.

192 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:31:03pm

re: #176 sliv_the_eli

OK, let’s do the arithmetic on this one.

How many Dems currently serve in the U.S. Senate? 57

How many Independents who typically vote with the Dems are in the Senate? 2

How many votes are needed to break a filibuster (or, more accurately, to invoke cloture)? 60

Assuming the 2 Independents vote with the Dems and all Dems vote to repeal DADT, how many Repubs do the Dems need to cross party lines in order to invoke cloture? Right, ONE.

Is there one Republican out there who supports repeal of DADT? You don’t have to trust my dishonest arguments. Read the APs article which candidly acknowledges that Senator Susan Collins of the evil Republican Party supports the repeal of DADT.

Now you tell me, does the math suggest that the Dems could secure the repeal of DADT if they really cared about the result? You know my view on the issue, but then again, what do I know? I can only count.

Guess how many republicans it takes to filibuster, and thus prevent, the attempt to bring the bill to a vote…

One. Just one.

193 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:33:19pm

re: #190 RogueOne

There seems to be a lot of excuse making going on in this thread. 5 months ago the house was able to get a few members of the republican party to vote to repeal DADT so why couldn’t the Senate? If Dems wanted DADT to pass they would have brought it up in a separate bill but they didn’t because they’re more interested in a desperate attempt to drum up support before an election where they’re about to take a beating.

Attaching the Dream Act to a defense bill? Puh-lease. Even Lugar, an incredibly moderate co-signer of the bill couldn’t vote for this defense budget. What a waste. Granted, repubs aren’t going out of their way to be helpful but don’t give the dems a pass for not getting shit accomplished when they absolutely could.

Incidentally for those that don’t know, this bill wouldn’t have repealed DADT today. According to Reid it would have gone into effect “if the president, the secretary of defense and the Joint Chiefs chairman certify that an internal study concluded that repeal would not adversely impact troop readiness or morale.”

[Link: www.politico.com…]

because it was filibustered before it could be voted upon. There’s your answer. It’s the sort of unequivocal answer that lays the responsibility of not being voted upon solely and completely at the feet of republicans.

194 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:33:24pm

re: #108 Obdicut

I have no idea what you’re talking about, Reine. I am perfectly willing to criticize Democrats. I do so often.

But in this case, two Democrats are blocking DADT. Forty Republicans are.

I object to the equation that 2 = 40. I always will.

I agreed with Lawhawk’s assessment that the Dems, all 57 of them, are playing games with procedure, on an issue they should feel passionately enough about that no games should be played.

I object to the equation that 57 = none.

195 sagehen  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:35:24pm

re: #180 sliv_the_eli

OK, at least now we are clear on the terms of reference. We disagree, however, on whether the Dems could have gotten a couple of Repub votes if they really cared about the issue, rather than scoring political points. As I noted in #176, they don’t need more than one or two Repub votes. On issues that the Dem leadership cared about, they came up with a strategy to get the votes.

Dem leadership really cared about the stimulus, and offered all sorts of compromises. They made 1/3 of it tax cuts. They cut out half a dozen specific funding items that Republicans objected to. They spent a week with Snowe going through it line by line trying to knock down another $100M. And when it finally came to a vote… not a single Republican vote, not even Snowe.

Dem leadership really cared about the health care bill. Snowe was on one of the committees writing it, and spent half the summer rolling them. The committee could have passed it 11-7 on a party line vote, but they really wanted Snowe on board. She stalled. She opposed sections. She negotiated compromises, and when she got what she’d asked for she’d suddenly think of something else to ask for. They burned up almost half of the time that the Dems had a filibuster-proof count before she finally, finally voted to get it out of committee, with a speech about how she hadn’t decided if she’d actually vote for the bill when it came to a final vote. And indeed, she didn’t vote for the bill.

So fuck your “the Dems could have gotten a couple of Repub votes if they really cared about the issue.” They got Voinovich, because he’s not running again and doesn’t give a care what the Republican leadership wants, but that’s all. And in the lame duck session after the election, there’ll probably be a couple less Dems and more Reps because the seats that used to hold Byrd and Obama and Biden and Salazar the interim appointees get tossed the day after the election and the winners don’t have to wait until January.

196 RogueOne  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:37:11pm

re: #193 Fozzie Bear

because it was filibustered before it could be voted upon. There’s your answer. It’s the sort of unequivocal answer that lays the responsibility of not being voted upon solely and completely at the feet of republicans.

They only needed 3 republican votes to repeal and they have them. They chose to apply it to a massive appropriations act that no one could try to amend and tossed in the Dream Act as the smoking cherry bomb on top. They have the votes to repeal, they should grow the hell up and put it up for a vote before it disappears down the drain in the house for the next 2 years.

197 RogueOne  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:40:20pm

re: #195 sagehen

Lets see all the “I voted for the stimulus!” campaign commercials out there? I think I’ve seen them right next to the “Hooray for HCR!” posters. Arguing that they were the only party to vote for a costly failure isn’t going to get them anywhere.

198 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:45:58pm

re: #196 RogueOne

They only needed 3 republican votes to repeal and they have them. They chose to apply it to a massive appropriations act that no one could try to amend and tossed in the Dream Act as the smoking cherry bomb on top. They have the votes to repeal, they should grow the hell up and put it up for a vote before it disappears down the drain in the house for the next 2 years.

They won’t. The Dems want the DREAM Act as a electoral weapon.
The entire construction of this vote was Harry Reid flipping a coin and saying to Mitch McConnell “Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.”.

199 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:48:06pm

re: #194 reine.de.tout

I agreed with Lawhawk’s assessment that the Dems, all 57 of them, are playing games with procedure, on an issue they should feel passionately enough about that no games should be played.

I object to the equation that 57 = none.

What game with procedure? I have no clue what this argument even is. They bundled bills together. That’s not playing with procedure. Especially since each bill should pass under their own merits.

200 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:48:38pm

re: #187 sliv_the_eli

You have still dodged the question of why she has voted against bringing this to an up or down vote.

201 Charles Johnson  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:48:58pm

The Joint Chiefs seem to think the DREAM Act is necessary to maintain military recruitment levels. But what do they know?

202 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:49:22pm

re: #197 RogueOne

Lets see all the “I voted for the stimulus!” campaign commercials out there? I think I’ve seen them right next to the “Hooray for HCR!” posters. Arguing that they were the only party to vote for a costly failure isn’t going to get them anywhere.

I’ve seen plenty. Except they brag about specific things done with stimulus funds, while simultaneously citing opposition to the stimulus. Typical hypocrisy.

203 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:50:06pm

re: #201 Charles

The Joint Chiefs seem to think the DREAM Act is necessary to maintain military recruitment levels. But what do they know?

Apparently when you bundle together three good bills related to defense into one package that’s ‘playing with procedure’.

204 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:54:24pm

re: #199 Obdicut

What game with procedure? I have no clue what this argument even is. They bundled bills together. That’s not playing with procedure. Especially since each bill should pass under their own merits.

I agreed with Lawhawk’s assessment, and look, here it is!

re: #53 lawhawk

So you think that the Democrats are blameless here? Sorry, but I think that they were playing procedural games too. They wanted to bring this up to show that the GOP is a bunch of bigots (and they got their desired result), but if they wanted to pass the underlying bill without amendments, they could have gotten bipartisan support.

Such is the way Congress has always done business. Both sides of the aisle have used the rules to their advantage to push legislation and their agendas.

That’s not magical fairy balance. That’s the history of Congress.


I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the DREAM act, and in no way have I defended Republicans on this.

I have a problem when the Dems are called to task as well, and the stilly “magical balance fairy” is brought out as a counter-argument. It’s silly.

205 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:55:00pm

re: #204 reine.de.tout

Please explain what ‘procedural game’ the Democrats were playing, then.

206 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:56:29pm

re: #204 reine.de.tout

I agreed with Lawhawk’s assessment, and look, here it is!

re: #53 lawhawk


I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the DREAM act, and in no way have I defended Republicans on this.

I have a problem when the Dems are called to task as well, and the stilly “magical balance fairy” is brought out as a counter-argument. It’s silly.


I also have a HUGE problem with WUB restating what I’ve said in this thread as this:

re: #116 WindUpBird

Are you really going to try and elevate the idea that Democrats and Republicans are somehow equal on gay rights?

When I NEVER said any such thing. I don’t play games with WUB, or put words in his mouth, or really, I don’t do it with anybody. So - what’s he up to with that?

207 RogueOne  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 5:58:50pm

re: #201 Charles

The Joint Chiefs seem to think the DREAM Act is necessary to maintain military recruitment levels. But what do they know?

The military sees the Dream Act as a recruiters dream but since 90% of the bill has nothing to do with the military maybe that should have been a separate bill too? They had the votes to pass it and a republican is even a co-signer to the bill.

208 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:00:40pm

re: #205 Obdicut

Please explain what ‘procedural game’ the Democrats were playing, then.

The Dems tacked on two bills to the Defense Bill and refused to allow the Senate to even vote on any GOP Amendments. Harry Reid wanted to use this bill and vote as weapons. He got his wish and in about 6 weeks we’ll see what the voters say.

209 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:02:06pm

re: #207 RogueOne

The military sees the Dream Act as a recruiters dream but since 90% of the bill has nothing to do with the military maybe that should have been a separate bill too? They had the votes to pass it and a republican is even a co-signer to the bill.

They had the votes to pass the Dream Act all on its own. But didn’t do it that way. Why? (don’t answer - it’s not allowed to criticize any Congressional games).

210 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:02:21pm

re: #208 Dark_Falcon

The Dems tacked on two bills to the Defense Bill and refused to allow the Senate to even vote on any GOP Amendments. Harry Reid wanted to use this bill and vote as weapons. He got his wish and in about 6 weeks we’ll see what the voters say.

Thank you.

211 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:09:33pm

re: #208 Dark_Falcon

The Dems tacked on two bills to the Defense Bill and refused to allow the Senate to even vote on any GOP Amendments. Harry Reid wanted to use this bill and vote as weapons. He got his wish and in about 6 weeks we’ll see what the voters say.

How is that procedural games, exactly? Why not allow an up-or-down vote on the bills as they stand?

I don’t get this line of reasoning. The bills are worth voting for. The GOP are blocking a vote on them. They are not voting against them; they are voting against voting.

Why does this lead you to say that the Democrats are playing ‘procedural games’.

Yes, the Democrats want the bills passed without an endless cycle of poison-pill amendments. Big whup. If the bill, unamended, is bad, the GOP can vote against it.

But the GOP is not. They are not allowing any vote on the bill.

And that is playing a procedural game. One that winds up with gays, immigrants, and the military losing.

I do not understand in the least how the GOP has managed to convince so many people that blocking votes on legitimate bills— in this case, bills that have had significant GOP input— is a good thing to do.

I just don’t get it.

212 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:10:38pm

re: #210 reine.de.tout

Thank you.

You’re welcome. Sometimes the Magical Balance Fairy really does have a place. Congress is a place where both parties do natsy things to try to gain political advantage. It’s been that way since the time of John Adams and will not change.

213 3kids3dogs  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:10:59pm

re: #204 reine.de.tout

I agreed with Lawhawk’s assessment, and look, here it is!

re: #53 lawhawk


I don’t have any problem whatsoever with the DREAM act, and in no way have I defended Republicans on this.

I have a problem when the Dems are called to task as well, and the stilly “magical balance fairy” is brought out as a counter-argument. It’s silly.

The DREAM act and repeal of DADT did not pass. Both pieces of legislation are worthy of passing. I assess blame as 95% Republican fault and 5% Democratic fault. How would you place the percentages?

214 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:12:10pm

re: #208 Dark_Falcon

The Dems tacked on two bills to the Defense Bill and refused to allow the Senate to even vote on any GOP Amendments. Harry Reid wanted to use this bill and vote as weapons. He got his wish and in about 6 weeks we’ll see what the voters say.

The GOP would have offered amendments sending the DADT repeal back to committee, stripped DREAM eligibility from non-citizens who’ve completed military services and / or met the educational requirements on their own, and passed a gutted, bigot friendly bill. It’s not a “game” to protect legislation vital to our national military preparedness from being hacked away by a greasy bunch of hateful, gay bashing, xenophobic, malignant jerk offs who are playing to an audience that cares for neither their nation’s dignity nor personal integrity.

215 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:14:32pm

re: #211 Obdicut

How is that procedural games, exactly? Why not allow an up-or-down vote on the bills as they stand?

I don’t get this line of reasoning. The bills are worth voting for. The GOP are blocking a vote on them. They are not voting against them; they are voting against voting.

Why does this lead you to say that the Democrats are playing ‘procedural games’.

Yes, the Democrats want the bills passed without an endless cycle of poison-pill amendments. Big whup. If the bill, unamended, is bad, the GOP can vote against it.

But the GOP is not. They are not allowing any vote on the bill.

And that is playing a procedural game. One that winds up with gays, immigrants, and the military losing.

I do not understand in the least how the GOP has managed to convince so many people that blocking votes on legitimate bills— in this case, bills that have had significant GOP input— is a good thing to do.

I just don’t get it.

For all intents and purposes these days, the cloture vote is the vote on the bill. Non-budget items now need 60 votes in the Senate. And Harry Reid didn’t say no to ‘poison pills’ he said no to any changes. For Republicans, to have voted for cloture would have been to effectively vote for the bill and given the way Reid was playing the game, they could do that. If Reid wants to introduce separate bills, let him do so. This was a political move by both parties.

216 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:15:56pm

re: #213 3kids3dogs

The DREAM act and repeal of DADT did not pass. Both pieces of legislation are worthy of passing. I assess blame as 95% Republican fault and 5% Democratic fault. How would you place the percentages?

prolly about the same.

Have you read any of my previous posts, or are you making assumptions about what I have in my head or what I mean? Please don’t do that.


It seems the D’s are beyond reproach on this, the silly “magical balance fairy” response was trotted out. I think that’s SILLY for this discussion.

217 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:16:33pm

re: #212 Dark_Falcon

You’re welcome. Sometimes the Magical Balance Fairy really does have a place. Congress is a place where both parties do natsy things to try to gain political advantage. It’s been that way since the time of John Adams and will not change.

Agreed. But it’s wrong to trot it out here, IMO.

218 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:21:59pm

re: #215 Dark_Falcon

For all intents and purposes these days, the cloture vote is the vote on the bill. Non-budget items now need 60 votes in the Senate. And Harry Reid didn’t say no to ‘poison pills’ he said no to any changes. For Republicans, to have voted for cloture would have been to effectively vote for the bill and given the way Reid was playing the game, they could not do that. If Reid wants to introduce separate bills, let him do so. This was a political move by both parties.

Geeze, that’s a blooper.

219 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:22:54pm

re: #217 reine.de.tout

Agreed. But it’s wrong to trot it out here, IMO.

Concur.

220 Escaped Hillbilly  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:23:22pm

re: #78 reine.de.tout Sounds like horse manure to me. So because they got a degree (instead of a job?) they get to stay? Why not come here legally as a student if that is your aim? There should be ZERO rewards for breaking the law to come here. I can understand the military clause though it is also problematic. Are you gonna give security clearances to illegal aliens? Come to the US legally, and everything else follows. There aren’t “good” illegals and “bad” illegals, just illegals.

221 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:25:43pm

re: #215 Dark_Falcon

For all intents and purposes these days, the cloture vote is the vote on the bill. Non-budget items now need 60 votes in the Senate. And Harry Reid didn’t say no to ‘poison pills’ he said no to any changes. For Republicans, to have voted for cloture would have been to effectively vote for the bill and given the way Reid was playing the game, they could do that. If Reid wants to introduce separate bills, let him do so. This was a political move by both parties.

No, Dark. You cannot say that voting to allow a vote is the same thing as voting for the bill. I have no idea how the GOP has managed to get this meme to stick so much. Especially since they were enraged by this very concept not so long ago.

This makes me very sad.

I am in favor of bills that aren’t allowed to be amended out of committee in the first place. I hate the whole amendment process. It leads to more waste, and more neutered bills, than anything else. A bill on child labor suddenly has five thousand other aspects to it.

The fillibuster was not meant to be used on every bill. You are saying that it was. This is wrong. It is not what the founders intended, and it does not work.

222 3kids3dogs  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:26:42pm

re: #216 reine.de.tout

prolly about the same.

Have you read any of my previous posts, or are you making assumptions about what I have in my head or what I mean? Please don’t do that.

It seems the D’s are beyond reproach on this, the silly “magical balance fairy” response was trotted out. I think that’s SILLY for this discussion.

I offered my opinion and asked you a question. I thought that assessing blame on a percentage basis might allow you to show that you weren’t equally assigning blame.
BTW, I’d like for you to point out to me where I made any assumption about you. In fact, it seems to me that you are the one that made an assumption about the motives behind my post. Have we had any interaction in the past that would lead you to do so?

223 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:26:54pm

re: #217 reine.de.tout

Agreed. But it’s wrong to trot it out here, IMO.

I completely stand by it.

The GOP refuses to let the bill come to a vote. Because it would pass.

That is what happens when you are a minority in the congress. Bills that the majority favors get passed.

That the GOP is willing to fillibuster every damn bill that they are not allowed to completely neuter is the procedural game.

224 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:28:18pm

re: #222 3kids3dogs

I offered my opinion and asked you a question. I thought that assessing blame on a percentage basis might allow you to show that you weren’t equally assigning blame.
BTW, I’d like for you to point out to me where I made any assumption about you. In fact, it seems to me that you are the one that made an assumption about the motives behind my post. Have we had any interaction in the past that would lead you to do so?

You are absolutely correct, my deepest apologies to you.

I’m all riled up; you were unfairly the target. Again, my apologies.

225 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:28:41pm

re: #221 Obdicut

No, Dark. You cannot say that voting to allow a vote is the same thing as voting for the bill. I have no idea how the GOP has managed to get this meme to stick so much. Especially since they were enraged by this very concept not so long ago.

This makes me very sad.

I am in favor of bills that aren’t allowed to be amended out of committee in the first place. I hate the whole amendment process. It leads to more waste, and more neutered bills, than anything else. A bill on child labor suddenly has five thousand other aspects to it.

The fillibuster was not meant to be used on every bill. You are saying that it was. This is wrong. It is not what the founders intended, and it does not work.

The Dems fillibustered too. It’s a Senate minority meme, and its the way it is. That’s how the Senate chooses to do business, and I don’t see it changing.

226 3kids3dogs  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:30:25pm

re: #220 Escaped Hillbilly

Sounds like horse manure to me. So because they got a degree (instead of a job?) they get to stay? Why not come here legally as a student if that is your aim? There should be ZERO rewards for breaking the law to come here.

According to the info I read above, the DREAM act applies to those that came here before the age of 16 so it would usually be that they were brought here by parents. Would you change your assessment of the act in light of this information?

227 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:30:41pm

re: #225 Dark_Falcon

The Dems fillibustered too. It’s a Senate minority meme, and its the way it is. That’s how the Senate chooses to do business, and I don’t see it changing.

Why are you choosing to believe that this is the level that filibustering has always been at?

It’s not true. It’s not reality.

228 3kids3dogs  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:32:01pm

re: #224 reine.de.tout

You are absolutely correct, my deepest apologies to you.

I’m all riled up; you were unfairly the target. Again, my apologies.

Apology absolutely accepted. Again, I was just trying to help advance the debate.

229 reine.de.tout  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:33:28pm

re: #228 3kids3dogs

Apology absolutely accepted. Again, I was just trying to help advance the debate.

I re-read, and yes, that’s what you were doing, absolutely.
I’m really pissed at WUB right now, for his dishonesty in putting words in my mouth that I never said, felt attacked a bit from that, and my emotions got away from me.

230 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:34:13pm

re: #227 Obdicut

Why are you choosing to believe that this is the level that filibustering has always been at?

It’s not true. It’s not reality.

I know it was once different, but I don’t see it changing back. The ‘gentleman’s filibuster’ serves the Senate too well.

231 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:35:57pm

re: #230 Dark_Falcon

I know it was once different, but I don’t see it changing back. The ‘gentleman’s filibuster’ serves the Senate too well.

It has changed in this congress. With the GOP as a minority. They are the ones who changed it. The number of filibusters had been gradually creeping up, but they have increased them by an order of magnitude. Just like they have blocked a record number of appointments— appointments of people to jobs that actually need to be done.

But you accuse the Democrats of playing procedural games. By asking that a bill be voted on.

232 3kids3dogs  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:37:50pm

re: #229 reine.de.tout

I re-read, and yes, that’s what you were doing, absolutely.
I’m really pissed at WUB right now, for his dishonesty in putting words in my mouth that I never said, felt attacked a bit from that, and my emotions got away from me.

No problem. I’m a very frequent lurker and very infrequent poster so an unfamiliar “face” may have pinged your radar.

233 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:41:33pm

re: #231 Obdicut

It has changed in this congress. With the GOP as a minority. They are the ones who changed it. The number of filibusters had been gradually creeping up, but they have increased them by an order of magnitude. Just like they have blocked a record number of appointments— appointments of people to jobs that actually need to be done.

But you accuse the Democrats of playing procedural games. By asking that a bill be voted on.

No, by tacking on amendments and then refusing to allow any from the other party to be even offered. Brown Snowe and Collins would be simply conceding to Reid if they voted for cloture. Reid said “My way or the highway” and got the predictable response.

234 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:46:19pm

re: #233 Dark_Falcon

No, by tacking on amendments and then refusing to allow any from the other party to be even offered.

What amendments were tacked on? And why doesn’t the GOP simply vote against the bills, so amended, if they object to them?

Brown Snowe and Collins would be simply conceding to Reid if they voted for cloture.

They would be allowing a bill to be voted on in the Senate. That is what they would be doing. They could vote against it. It might pass. It probably would. And that happens; that is supposed to happen. Bills that not everyone is in favor of are supposed to be able to be voted on.

The DREAM part of the bill is strongly Republican, so I really don’t get how Republicans have bee frozen out of the process.

235 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:54:00pm

re: #234 Obdicut

What amendments were tacked on? And why doesn’t the GOP simply vote against the bills, so amended, if they object to them?

They would be allowing a bill to be voted on in the Senate. That is what they would be doing. They could vote against it. It might pass. It probably would. And that happens; that is supposed to happen. Bills that not everyone is in favor of are supposed to be able to be voted on.

The DREAM part of the bill is strongly Republican, so I really don’t get how Republicans have bee frozen out of the process.

It is what it is. No heroes in the Senate, just politicians. And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

236 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 6:55:43pm

re: #235 Dark_Falcon

It is what it is. No heroes in the Senate, just politicians. And that’s all I’ve got to say about that.

And what it is is the GOP refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on a bill in the Senate.

And that is not the Democrats playing procedural games.

237 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 7:01:28pm

You know, I think this entire conversation has been off, because I’m fairly sure they get to vote on the actual amendment containing DADT when it’s brought to the floor.

I’ll check.

That would pretty much implode every ‘procedural game’ argument I’ve seen.

238 tradewind  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 8:06:50pm

Senators Collins and Snowe voted against this bill and neither has ever exhibited a homo-or-xenophobic tendency. Both of them objected to the ridiculous way that Harry Reid tried to end-run the legislative process.
I get that they’re desperate, but tacking two disparate and socially significant issues onto a military funding bill was a clueless move .

239 lostlakehiker  Tue, Sep 21, 2010 8:50:58pm

re: #231 Obdicut

It has changed in this congress. With the GOP as a minority. They are the ones who changed it. The number of filibusters had been gradually creeping up, but they have increased them by an order of magnitude. Just like they have blocked a record number of appointments— appointments of people to jobs that actually need to be done.

But you accuse the Democrats of playing procedural games. By asking that a bill be voted on.

It would have been better to bring the matter up as a stand-alone bill, instead of bundling everything together. Tactically, there just have to be pro-gay-rights Senators who are concerned about immigration, and pro-immigration Senators who don’t want to vote on DADT until the military has weighed in or until the upcoming November election is past.

The practice of bundling too many different things into one bill has the consequence that opponents of this, that, or the other unrelated measure get bundled into one mass of opposition, and the measure fails.

This thing should be brought up again, after the election, as a stand-alone measure. And it should pass.

240 ClaudeMonet  Wed, Sep 22, 2010 12:43:00am

re: #91 Lidane

I wish. Just pull the trigger and let them filibuster endlessly, tying up all the government’s business over gays in the military. See what happens in November then.

I have been saying this for over a year. MAKE them do it. Make them make themselves look like idiots. Stop being a bunch of stereotypical wienie Democrats, folding every time the other guy pushes in a bunch of chips.

OTOH, attaching the repeal of DADT and the DREAM initiative to a defense appropriations act is political dirty pool, too.

241 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Sep 22, 2010 2:13:14am

So I’ve confirmed that the Senate would have a chance to vote on the amendments to the Defense Bill individually if it were brought to the floor for a vote. So the GOP could have voted to debate the bill, and voted against DADT and DREAM amendments if they so wanted.

242 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Wed, Sep 22, 2010 2:13:35am

re: #239 lostlakehiker

See my 241.

243 sffilk  Wed, Sep 22, 2010 9:34:02am

re: #133 Decatur Deb

They would have no trouble:

[Link: linktu.com…]

[Link: www.google.com…]

But Max Cleland wasn’t marked as gay.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
3 weeks ago
Views: 788 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0