PDA

View Full Version : Environment Why did Republicans filibuster a repeal of DADT?


Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:15 AM
McCain's filibuster held in the Senate.

I don't see the thread anywhere.

57 of the 59 Dems voted for it, all Republicans against.

Why?

Isn't this a program that strengthens our military and engages homosexual equality?

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 09:20 AM
I think we know the answer. No need for a rhetorical question.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:25 AM
I'm sorry, but while ROYC is posting masturbatory pictures of the GOP as an elephant head with a bodybuilder's torso, this questions deserves to be engaged.

Anybody defending keeping gays in the closet needs to step up and defend this.

Under a Republican House, DADT will not have any sort of Congressional approval. Period.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:31 AM
The military doesn't want it. End of story. I have no problems with DADT. We don't need our military politicised over sexual preferrences.

Stinger
09-22-2010, 09:32 AM
Maybe you should ask the 2 Democrats who voted against the bill as to why they crossed lines and I believe you will find your answer.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:34 AM
Maybe you should ask the 2 Democrats who voted against the bill as to why they crossed lines and I believe you will find your answer.

Democrats aren't the ones blocking this legislation.

Dems voted in favor 57 out of 59 for something YOU probably agree with. Republicans stand opposed unanimously.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:37 AM
So the hero fo the Left, Bill Clinton, implements DADT and now the Left is pissed that the Right doesn't want to repeal it??? Choice.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2010, 09:37 AM
This matter should be up to those who run the military as they know best than political activists what polices harm morale.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:39 AM
So the hero fo the Left, Bill Clinton, implements DADT and now the Left is pissed that the Right doesn't want to repeal it???

...are you in favor of DADT, pete?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:44 AM
...are you in favor of DADT, pete?

Yep. Our military does not need to be in the business of sexual preferrence. Therefore, they won't ask you what yours is and you want tell. It's that simple.

Donger
09-22-2010, 09:45 AM
Homosexuals aren't equal, and never will be.

Is it back to school time for Direckshun?

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 09:45 AM
I'm sorry, but while ROYC is posting masturbatory pictures of the GOP as an elephant head with a bodybuilder's torso, this questions deserves to be engaged.

Anybody defending keeping gays in the closet needs to step up and defend this.

Under a Republican House, DADT will not have any sort of Congressional approval. Period.

Will you elaborate on your last sentence? I don't really understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that gays will be banned from the military if the Republicans win the House? I don't think that's what you mean, but it comes across that way to me.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:46 AM
Will you elaborate on your last sentence? I don't really understand what you mean by that. Are you saying that gays will be banned from the military if the Republicans win the House? I don't think that's what you mean, but it comes across that way to me.

Yeah, I meant repeal of DADT. My bad.

Mojo Jojo
09-22-2010, 09:47 AM
McCain's filibuster held in the Senate.

I don't see the thread anywhere.

57 of the 59 Dems voted for it, all Republicans against.

Why?

Isn't this a program that strengthens our military and engages homosexual equality?

Why couldn't the Dems get all 59 votes, and the Ind. who votes with them? This falls on the Democratic leadership.

patteeu
09-22-2010, 09:48 AM
When you can't get a moderate who supports DADT on board, you know the problem isn't on the side of those who chose to filibuster.

Here's why Susan Collins joined the filibuster (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0921/Why-Sen.-Susan-Collins-is-blocking-vote-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell):

“It’s the right thing to do. I think it’s only fair" to repeal don't ask, don't tell, said Senator Collins in a floor speech Tuesday. “But I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that’s going to shut down the debate and preclude Republican amendments. That, too, is not fair.

If Harry Reid wanted to pass DADT, maybe he should bring it up as normal legislation and he should not only get the same democrat votes who supported it this time around, but also moderates like Susan Collins. But we both know that Harry Reid's primary interest here isn't to pass DADT.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:48 AM
Yep. Our military does not need to be in the business of sexual preferrence. Therefore, they won't ask you what yours is and you want tell. It's that simple.

You're allowed to say the words "I'm straight" in the military.

You can be dishonorably discharged in the military for saying "I'm gay."

And that's a good idea, you say.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:49 AM
Why couldn't the Dems get all 59 votes, and the Ind. who votes with them? This falls on the Democratic leadership.

Even if they did, they still need 1 Republican.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:51 AM
When you can't get a moderate who supports DADT on board, you know the problem isn't on the side of those who chose to filibuster.

Here's why Susan Collins joined the filibuster (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0921/Why-Sen.-Susan-Collins-is-blocking-vote-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell):

If Harry Reid wanted to pass DADT, maybe he should bring it up as normal legislation and he should not only get the same democrat votes who supported it this time around, but also moderates like Susan Collins. But we both know that Harry Reid's primary interest here isn't to pass DADT.

So the Republicans are going to fall back on process yet again.

God. This is pretty much the exact same refrain Republicans have used to oppose everything the Democrats and the Obama administration does -- you'd almost think this kind of process never occurs during Republican administrations. When it's just as bad, if not worse.

petegz28
09-22-2010, 09:54 AM
You're allowed to say the words "I'm straight" in the military.

You can be dishonorably discharged in the military for saying "I'm gay."

And that's a good idea, you say.

Well, tough shit. Then don't join the military.

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 09:56 AM
You're allowed to say the words "I'm straight" in the military.

You can be dishonorably discharged in the military for saying "I'm gay."

And that's a good idea, you say.

I don't think this is accurate.

stevieray
09-22-2010, 10:01 AM
You're allowed to say the words "I'm straight" in the military.

You can be dishonorably discharged in the military for saying "I'm gay."

And that's a good idea, you say.

...In the military qualifiers aren't neccessary. You're a soldier first. To be a gay soldier implies that you're sexuality is more important than your duty, and that just doesn't fly in the DOD.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:05 AM
Well, tough shit. Then don't join the military.

Great argument there.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:06 AM
I don't think this is accurate.

Based on.... what, exactly?

Donger
09-22-2010, 10:07 AM
Great argument there.

It is, actually. If we had a draft, you might have a point. Since we don't...

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:07 AM
...In the military qualifiers aren't neccessary. You're a soldier first. To be a gay soldier implies that you're sexuality is more important than your duty, and that just doesn't fly in the DOD.

So you no doubt believe that DADT should apply to straight soldiers, as well.

Noted.

Stevieray believes that straight soldiers should be kicked out of the military for admitting so publicly.

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 10:08 AM
Based on.... what, exactly?

Based on your stetement that soldiers are dishonorably discharged for stating that they are gay.

Donger
09-22-2010, 10:10 AM
So you no doubt believe that DADT should apply to straight soldiers, as well.

Noted.

Stevieray believes that straight soldiers should be kicked out of the military for admitting so publicly.

Homosexuality is not the norm. Heterosexuality is. Sorry.

How about bestiality? Should the military include those people, too?

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:11 AM
Based on your stetement that soldiers are dishonorably discharged for stating that they are gay.

So you've got absolutely nothing to go on other than the fact that If Direckshun Said It, It Must Be Wrong.

You're dangerously close to jumping the shark here.

Donger
09-22-2010, 10:13 AM
So you've got absolutely nothing to go on other than the fact that If Direckshun Said It, It Must Be Wrong.

You're dangerously close to jumping the shark here.

Well, you made the claim. Please post evidence of a person who received a DD for saying, "I'm gay."

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 10:19 AM
Ever notice how bad a Liberal whines and cries when they don't get their way ? Always want to blame others for their failed policies.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:20 AM
Ever notice how bad a Liberal whines and cries when they don't get their way ? Always want to blame others for their failed policies.

1. I whine and cry when gays are discriminated against. As should any American.

2. In this case, you literally blame the Republicans. Period.

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 10:20 AM
So you've got absolutely nothing to go on other than the fact that If Direckshun Said It, It Must Be Wrong.

You're dangerously close to jumping the shark here.

Its my understanding that you do not receive a DD for simply admitting your homosexuality. This is reserved for those who commit acts of sodomy or push the issue further than simply admitting the preference.

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 10:21 AM
1. I whine and cry when gays are discriminated against. As should any American.

2. In this case, you literally blame the Republicans. Period.

What Republican spearheaded DADT?

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:22 AM
Its my understanding that you do not receive a DD for simply admitting your homosexuality. This is reserved for those who commit acts of sodomy or push the issue further than simply admitting the preference.

What's the difference between saying "I want to be in a relationship with another guy" and "I am in a relationship with another guy."

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:23 AM
What Republican spearheaded DADT?

Clinton openly admits that he believes DADT was the closest you could get to gays in the military at the time.

Now it's time to move forward. Republicans, as usual, would prefer not to.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 10:25 AM
LAT (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/18/local/me-gay-military18):

One of the rarely discussed effects of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule is the burden it places on the civilian partners of gay and lesbian service members. When their loved ones go to war, they do not have access to any of the counseling, financial assistance or support networks offered to heterosexual spouses. And if their loved ones die, no one will come knocking at their doors to notify them.

Tough shit! Right Pete!?

Donger
09-22-2010, 10:27 AM
Now it's time to move forward. Republicans, as usual, would prefer not to.

LMAO

And Direckshun finally manages to answer her own question. Took you long enough.

Yes, many Republicans don't agree with the notion that homosexuality should be normalized.

ROYC75
09-22-2010, 10:31 AM
1. I whine and cry when gays are discriminated against. As should any American.

2. In this case, you literally blame the Republicans. Period.

No, I blame the gay for having an in-moral lifestyle. It was his / her choice to live this way, just as a drunk does with alcohol, or a person hooked on drugs. It's their choice, suffer the consequences.

stevieray
09-22-2010, 10:32 AM
So you no doubt believe that DADT should apply to straight soldiers, as well.

Noted.

Stevieray believes that straight soldiers should be kicked out of the military for admitting so publicly.

ya, that's exactly what I said...drama queen much?

we aren't talking about "straight" people needing to publically admit something, are we?


...speaking of straight...what are the antonyms?

petegz28
09-22-2010, 10:32 AM
So in one thread Direkshun says the military supports the DREAM Act so we should support it. In another thread he totally ignores the fact that the military does not want DADT repealed. THAT is objectivity!!!

|Zach|
09-22-2010, 10:38 AM
Seems silly to filibusterer. This just seems like one of issues that is way overblown. It isn't a big deal either way.

patteeu
09-22-2010, 11:08 AM
So the Republicans are going to fall back on process yet again.

God. This is pretty much the exact same refrain Republicans have used to oppose everything the Democrats and the Obama administration does -- you'd almost think this kind of process never occurs during Republican administrations. When it's just as bad, if not worse.

What happened to "We've got to change the way Washington works"?

ClevelandBronco
09-22-2010, 11:17 AM
What happened to "We've got to change the way Washington works"?

They got there and found out that Washington doesn't work at all. Now they're baffled as to what they should change.

patteeu
09-22-2010, 11:17 AM
So the Republicans are going to fall back on process yet again.

God. This is pretty much the exact same refrain Republicans have used to oppose everything the Democrats and the Obama administration does -- you'd almost think this kind of process never occurs during Republican administrations. When it's just as bad, if not worse.

Oh, and btw, the Republican I quoted didn't "fall back on process". She's in favor of DADT. The process bothered her enough to vote against it anyway. If Harry Reid wanted to pass it, he wouldn't have made it too odious for Susan Collins to vote for it.

BucEyedPea
09-22-2010, 11:38 AM
Now it's time to move forward.to.
Perhaps, forward is the wrong word. Why is this a forward move?

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 12:38 PM
ITT: lamentable posts from all the usual suspects

Donger
09-22-2010, 12:45 PM
ITT: lamentable posts from all the usual suspects

Give Direckshun a break.

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 12:49 PM
Give Direckshun a break.
You are the most lamentable in this thread. By far.

Donger
09-22-2010, 12:50 PM
You are the most lamentable in this thread. By far.

Why is that?

BigChiefFan
09-22-2010, 12:59 PM
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a fair policy. That's about all you can do, to preserve people's rights to privacy in the military.

If you ask them to die for your country, then they should have every right as any other American. I'm okay with don't ask, don't tell. What's wrong with that? The Military is about serving your country and has ZERO to do with sexual orientation. Our politicans should treat it as such and stay out of someone else's private business.
Time to move on, Folks, this isn't a pressing issue, which is why it was brought up in the first place to distract the masses from all the money our country has been looted.

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 01:09 PM
What's the difference between saying "I want to be in a relationship with another guy" and "I am in a relationship with another guy."

You were wrong in your statement, and you are further demonstrating that you don't even understand what you are discussing. Do your own homework. Its not my job to walk you through the process. You started the thread, and you made the incorrect statement, Fonzie.

vailpass
09-22-2010, 01:13 PM
People who think the gay agenda is more important than our military amuse me no end.

Iowanian
09-22-2010, 02:56 PM
Easy, Repubs must be tired of watching the Dems burn down their own neighborhood so they decided to start taking away their matches and gas.

RaiderH8r
09-22-2010, 03:20 PM
When you can't get a moderate who supports DADT on board, you know the problem isn't on the side of those who chose to filibuster.

Here's why Susan Collins joined the filibuster (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0921/Why-Sen.-Susan-Collins-is-blocking-vote-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell):



If Harry Reid wanted to pass DADT, maybe he should bring it up as normal legislation and he should not only get the same democrat votes who supported it this time around, but also moderates like Susan Collins. But we both know that Harry Reid's primary interest here isn't to pass DADT.

It is Harry and the left's Senate M.O. Bring up a bill, fill the amendment tree and then bitch that R's didn't roll over and play dead so Harry can get an up or down vote.

Harry could have done DREAM and DADT repeal at any time in the preceeding 18 months they had control over the whole shitteree. Why didn't the Dems care enough about these issues for 18 months to address them via regular order? Why not truly have the debate and allow votes on substantive amendments? Why cram it into a Defense Auth bill during wartime?

Of course this is all rhetorical because the answer is clear.

RaiderH8r
09-22-2010, 03:26 PM
So the Republicans are going to fall back on process yet again.

God. This is pretty much the exact same refrain Republicans have used to oppose everything the Democrats and the Obama administration does -- you'd almost think this kind of process never occurs during Republican administrations. When it's just as bad, if not worse.

Well it is probably because the left continually chooses to pervert process and regular order (betraying their lies of transparency, open government, and debate) in an effort to cram through poorly crafted and ineptly managed legislation.

The largest majorities in decades and they can't get shit passed. This is not a reflection on Republicans. Who f'ing knew that Republicans have different ideas from Democrats? Who in the world could have f'ing guessed? Christ what a bunch of dipshits. The fact they can't get shit done falls squarely and directly on the ineptitude of Democrats, their leadership in the House and Senate, and their President. Period.

Saul Good
09-22-2010, 04:50 PM
Come on Direchshun. It's time to admit that you are full of shit. People aren't dishonorably discharged for saying "I'm gay".

Reaper16
09-22-2010, 07:15 PM
Why is that?
Because of posts like

Homosexuals aren't equal, and never will be.

Is it back to school time for Direckshun?

Homosexuality is not the norm. Heterosexuality is. Sorry.

How about bestiality? Should the military include those people, too?

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:19 PM
No, I blame the gay for having an in-moral lifestyle. It was his / her choice to live this way, just as a drunk does with alcohol, or a person hooked on drugs. It's their choice, suffer the consequences.

Oy.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:20 PM
What happened to "We've got to change the way Washington works"?

That's a deflection to Obama. You want to talk Obama and campaign promises, that's a different thread.

I'm talking about Republicans holding up a repeal of a sinister policy because they didn't like the letterhead.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:21 PM
Oh, and btw, the Republican I quoted didn't "fall back on process". She's in favor of DADT. The process bothered her enough to vote against it anyway. If Harry Reid wanted to pass it, he wouldn't have made it too odious for Susan Collins to vote for it.

I'll believe she's in favor of repealin DADT when she actually votes on it.

Until then, she favors having legislation stalled for miniscule reasons.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:22 PM
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a fair policy. That's about all you can do, to preserve people's rights to privacy in the military.

If you ask them to die for your country, then they should have every right as any other American. I'm okay with don't ask, don't tell. What's wrong with that? The Military is about serving your country and has ZERO to do with sexual orientation. Our politicans should treat it as such and stay out of someone else's private business.
Time to move on, Folks, this isn't a pressing issue, which is why it was brought up in the first place to distract the masses from all the money our country has been looted.

Once again, you are on a roll. Or something.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:23 PM
You were wrong in your statement, and you are further demonstrating that you don't even understand what you are discussing. Do your own homework. Its not my job to walk you through the process. You started the thread, and you made the incorrect statement, Fonzie.

I'm asking you.

What's the difference between saying "I want another guy to be my boyfriend," and "A guy is my boyfriend."

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:24 PM
Well it is probably because the left continually chooses to pervert process and regular order (betraying their lies of transparency, open government, and debate) in an effort to cram through poorly crafted and ineptly managed legislation.

The largest majorities in decades and they can't get shit passed. This is not a reflection on Republicans. Who f'ing knew that Republicans have different ideas from Democrats? Who in the world could have f'ing guessed? Christ what a bunch of dipshits. The fact they can't get shit done falls squarely and directly on the ineptitude of Democrats, their leadership in the House and Senate, and their President. Period.

The left?

Wait wait wait -- only the left perverts the process? I'm loving this. Tell me more.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 07:26 PM
Come on Direchshun. It's time to admit that you are full of shit. People aren't dishonorably discharged for saying "I'm gay".

They're dishonorably discharged for saying they are in a gay relationship.

Which, if you can make sense of that, I've got a prize for you.

What's the difference between saying "I want another guy to be my boyfriend" and "Another guy is my boyfriend"?

craneref
09-22-2010, 08:10 PM
They're dishonorably discharged for saying they are in a gay relationship.

Which, if you can make sense of that, I've got a prize for you.

What's the difference between saying "I want another guy to be my boyfriend" and "Another guy is my boyfriend"?

They are dishonerably discharged for fraudulent enlistment or commissioning. You have to answer a yes or no question upon entering the military about being gay among other things, are you a felon, do you do drugs!

There is a logistical problem with allowing openly gay to serve. As it is now we have no option on who room mates are. If you let homosexuals room together, then you would have to legally let males and females room together, because the military cannot discriminate.

Personally, if they solve the logistics, I could care less, a gay body stops a bullet as well as a straight one. However, those who are currently in would have to be discharged for fraudulent enlistment. Without Integrity, the military would fold.

patteeu
09-22-2010, 08:27 PM
That's a deflection to Obama. You want to talk Obama and campaign promises, that's a different thread.

I'm talking about Republicans holding up a repeal of a sinister policy because they didn't like the letterhead.

FYI, Obama is supposed to be the leader of the party that controls the Senate right now.

Again, if Susan Collins, a supporter of letting gays serve openly in the military, objects to the process, the process must be pretty odious. Let's hear you talk about why Harry Reid didn't make an honest attempt to lift DADT by proposing basic legislation on the matter and allowing debate and amendments from both sides?

patteeu
09-22-2010, 08:29 PM
I'll believe she's in favor of repealin DADT when she actually votes on it.

Until then, she favors having legislation stalled for miniscule reasons.

Maybe Harry Reid should put her on the spot by changing his approach and then we'd know for sure one way or the other. He'd also be more likely to succeed with the legislation (unless some of the democrats end up defecting once they believe it might actually pass).

patteeu
09-22-2010, 08:34 PM
They're dishonorably discharged for saying they are in a gay relationship.

Which, if you can make sense of that, I've got a prize for you.

What's the difference between saying "I want another guy to be my boyfriend" and "Another guy is my boyfriend"?

Isn't it obvious? In one case you actually have a boyfriend and in the other you don't.

ClevelandBronco
09-22-2010, 08:38 PM
Isn't it obvious? In one case you actually have a boyfriend and in the other you don't.

It's the difference between Obama saying that he wants to beat his wife senseless with a coal shovel and Obama actually caving in her ugly mug with a coal shovel.

Or the boyfriend thing.

And if he don't ask, I won't tell.

patteeu
09-22-2010, 08:41 PM
It's the difference between Obama saying that he wants to beat his wife senseless with a coal shovel and Obama actually caving in her ugly mug with a coal shovel.

Or the boyfriend thing.

He better watch out, she might be able to kick his ass.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 08:42 PM
Sounds like the Republicans are siding with the terrorists and are traitors for not funding our troops in a time of war. ;)

RaiderH8r
09-22-2010, 08:50 PM
Sounds like the Republicans are siding with the terrorists and are traitors for not funding our troops in a time of war. ;)

Indeed. And just as sinister this gives cover to D's that couldn't vote for DADT repeal because they were just giving the troops what they need. That couldn't be held up over something like DADT or DREAM.

Direckshun is trying to turn shit into shinola because he knows, like everyone else, that the D leadership, once again, pissed down its collective leg on another legislative strategy.

RaiderH8r
09-22-2010, 08:54 PM
The left?

Wait wait wait -- only the left perverts the process? I'm loving this. Tell me more.

Perverted it to the point that they can't pass a turd without going through a motion to proceed despite having the largest majority in decades. That's not just ineptitude, that's ineptitude on a truly progressive scale.

Dave Lane
09-22-2010, 09:00 PM
This matter should be up to those who run the military as they know best than political activists what polices harm morale.

So generally you are in favor of governmental authorities implementing policies they prefer over the the wishes of the the majority? Got it.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:00 PM
Personally, if they solve the logistics, I could care less, a gay body stops a bullet as well as a straight one. However, those who are currently in would have to be discharged for fraudulent enlistment. Without Integrity, the military would fold.

Define "fold."

I think that's the most fun part of your post.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:02 PM
FYI, Obama is supposed to be the leader of the party that controls the Senate right now.

Again, if Susan Collins, a supporter of letting gays serve openly in the military, objects to the process, the process must be pretty odious. Let's hear you talk about why Harry Reid didn't make an honest attempt to lift DADT by proposing basic legislation on the matter and allowing debate and amendments from both sides?

I'm not going to defend legislative process. I'm going to let the shills handle that football.

It's hideous and it pretty much always is. But the minority party always bitches about process when it runs out of substantive complaints. That's what they did with small business lending, that's what Fox News did with Obama on healthcare, it's what you do when you're out of ideas.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:02 PM
Isn't it obvious? In one case you actually have a boyfriend and in the other you don't.

In other words, there's no serious difference.

Direckshun
09-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Indeed. And just as sinister this gives cover to D's that couldn't vote for DADT repeal because they were just giving the troops what they need. That couldn't be held up over something like DADT or DREAM.

Direckshun is trying to turn shit into shinola because he knows, like everyone else, that the D leadership, once again, pissed down its collective leg on another legislative strategy.

This legislation cannot pass without a single Republican vote.

If a couple Republicans stepped up to the plate, and the Democrats had a couple that defected, maybe then blame could be properly rested at the majority's feet.

But at this point, you need 60. The Democrats put forth 57. The Republicans put forth 0.

And you people wonder why the GOP comes off as xenophobic.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 09:05 PM
Indeed. And just as sinister this gives cover to D's that couldn't vote for DADT repeal because they were just giving the troops what they need. That couldn't be held up over something like DADT or DREAM.

Direckshun is trying to turn shit into shinola because he knows, like everyone else, that the D leadership, once again, pissed down its collective leg on another legislative strategy.

It is not as sinister as the evil Republicans who sided with Bin Laden, AQ, and want to destroy our country and security over some brown people and people that like to kiss the same sex.

:Poke:

stevieray
09-22-2010, 09:50 PM
ya, that's exactly what I said...drama queen much?

we aren't talking about "straight" people needing to publically admit something, are we?


...speaking of straight...what are the antonyms?

...don't be a coward Defleckshun.

....answer the questions.

stevieray
09-22-2010, 09:50 PM
It is not as sinister as the evil Republicans who sided with Bin Laden, AQ, and want to destroy our country and security over some brown people and people that like to kiss the same sex.

:Poke:

deflection.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 09:56 PM
deflection.

What am I deflecting?

stevieray
09-22-2010, 09:58 PM
What am I deflecting?
:rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-22-2010, 10:05 PM
I'd like to know what supporters think about the Secret Band of Thebes.

dirk digler
09-22-2010, 10:15 PM
:rolleyes:

It was a serious question Stevie. I really don't know.

go bowe
09-22-2010, 10:41 PM
People who think the gay agenda is more important than our military amuse me no end.gay agenda?

you mean those gay guys the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs?

RaiderH8r
09-22-2010, 11:27 PM
This legislation cannot pass without a single Republican vote.

If a couple Republicans stepped up to the plate, and the Democrats had a couple that defected, maybe then blame could be properly rested at the majority's feet.

But at this point, you need 60. The Democrats put forth 57. The Republicans put forth 0.

And you people wonder why the GOP comes off as xenophobic.

And Collins flat said Reid had her vote but Reid thought it more important to use gays as a political football when his party is in the shit. Fair enough but bitch about "shills" when you're desperately heaving chum into the water hoping to get a bite. Bottom line, they could have run the DADT repeal and DREAM while Teddy was still kicking but it didn't rank then, it didn't rank for 19 months and it only ranks now because the left needs something, anything, to distract from the fact that they've grossly mismanaged the economy, dug a multi trillion dollar deficit, passed a health care reform act that not a single one of them are running on, passed a commodity reform act that none of them are running on, squandered the largest congressional majorities in decades and pissed away Presidential approval and popularity at a record pace.

Reid's management style has been to attempt to roll Senators at every turn, breaking agreements and putting amendments off limits and has the gall to wonder why nobody will roll over and play his game.

All of that and you can honestly still sit there befuddled that people can see through the bullshit lines and political ploys of the left? Get checked man.

None of this is to say the Republicans won't fuck it their shot either. Their leadership McConnell/Boehner have shown themselves capable of fucking up a wet dream. But that's a different discussion at a different time.

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 08:17 AM
I'm not going to defend legislative process. I'm going to let the shills handle that football.

It's hideous and it pretty much always is. But the minority party always bitches about process when it runs out of substantive complaints. That's what they did with small business lending, that's what Fox News did with Obama on healthcare, it's what you do when you're out of ideas.

I don't see Republicans bitching. I just see you.

The Democrats have a hammerlock on the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Rather than actually work to get this done, they attached it to a defense funding bill that they knew wouldn't pass, and true believers like youu lap it up.

Being pissed at the Republicans for winning this one is like a Jayhawks fan being pissed at NDSU for winning the opener. Your side has all of the advantages. This defeat is about the ineptitude of your side just as the Kansas loss was about the ineptitude of the Jayhawks. Either put in your best effort to win or shut the f*** up. The Democrats only lost because they never tried to win.

Keep blaming the minority party, though. It doesn't come across as whining at all. (BTW, this message comes from a man in favor of gay rights.)

patteeu
09-23-2010, 11:33 AM
I'm not going to defend legislative process. I'm going to let the shills handle that football.

It's hideous and it pretty much always is. But the minority party always bitches about process when it runs out of substantive complaints. That's what they did with small business lending, that's what Fox News did with Obama on healthcare, it's what you do when you're out of ideas.

As I keep trying to tell you, this isn't the minority bitching about process, it's one of the supporters of allowing gays to serve. Susan Collins is in the apparent majority on the merits of this issue but she couldn't countenance the process that Harry Reid employed. You're going to have to try a different dodge.

patteeu
09-23-2010, 11:33 AM
In other words, there's no serious difference.

The people who want a boyfriend but don't have one probably think it's a serious difference.

patteeu
09-23-2010, 11:37 AM
I'd like to know what supporters think about the Secret Band of Thebes.

Supporters of what?

go bowe
09-23-2010, 01:42 PM
I don't see Republicans bitching. I just see you.

The Democrats have a hammerlock on the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Rather than actually work to get this done, they attached it to a defense funding bill that they knew wouldn't pass, and true believers like youu lap it up.

Being pissed at the Republicans for winning this one is like a Jayhawks fan being pissed at NDSU for winning the opener. Your side has all of the advantages. This defeat is about the ineptitude of your side just as the Kansas loss was about the ineptitude of the Jayhawks. Either put in your best effort to win or shut the f*** up. The Democrats only lost because they never tried to win.

Keep blaming the minority party, though. It doesn't come across as whining at all. (BTW, this message comes from a man in favor of gay rights.)aha!!!

i just knew there was something wrong with you... :p :p :p

go bowe
09-23-2010, 01:48 PM
As I keep trying to tell you, this isn't the minority bitching about process, it's one of the supporters of allowing gays to serve. Susan Collins is in the apparent majority on the merits of this issue but she couldn't countenance the process that Harry Reid employed. You're going to have to try a different dodge.that apparent majority includes some 60% of the public and 100% of the joint chiefs...

what i want to know is will the republicans vote for the repeal once it's allowed to be fully debated and amended on the floor of both houses?

if mccain is any indication, i'd say probably not and that's just sad...

go bowe
09-23-2010, 01:50 PM
Supporters of what?supporters of not repealing dadt would be my best guess...

patteeu
09-23-2010, 02:01 PM
that apparent majority includes some 60% of the public and 100% of the joint chiefs...

what i want to know is will the republicans vote for the repeal once it's allowed to be fully debated and amended on the floor of both houses?

if mccain is any indication, i'd say probably not and that's just sad...

The apparent majority I'm talking about is a majority of the Senate that apparently wants to replace DADT with a policy that allows gays to serve openly in the military. Susan Collins is in that apparent majority, but she still sided with the filibuster here because of the process Harry Reid chose to use. That speaks volumes about Reid's real goal here.

patteeu
09-23-2010, 02:03 PM
supporters of not repealing dadt would be my best guess...

That would be my guess too, but it was a pretty awkward way of saying it so I asked the question.

go bowe
09-23-2010, 02:28 PM
The apparent majority I'm talking about is a majority of the Senate that apparently wants to replace DADT with a policy that allows gays to serve openly in the military. Susan Collins is in that apparent majority, but she still sided with the filibuster here because of the process Harry Reid chose to use. That speaks volumes about Reid's real goal here.reid has a goal? i didn't give him that much credit...

seriously, at least one of his goals would appear to be the repeal of the dadt policy...

i suppose we can assume that he wants some political gain out of it since we are approaching the mid-terms...

was there some other goal you had in mind?

go bowe
09-23-2010, 02:29 PM
That would be my guess too, but it was a pretty awkward way of saying it so I asked the question.you say awkward like it's a bad thing... :) :) :)

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 02:36 PM
reid has a goal? i didn't give him that much credit...

seriously, at least one of his goals would appear to be the repeal of the dadt policy...

i suppose we can assume that he wants some political gain out of it since we are approaching the mid-terms...

was there some other goal you had in mind?

If that was really his goal, he could ram it through the way health care was rammed through. The problem is that he has no political capital, and a strong majority of citizens oppose it. This way, he gets to fire up his base by painting Republicans as homophobes while not really pissing off 60% of the population by passing an unpopular measure.

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 03:01 PM
I'd like to know what supporters think about the Secret Band of Thebes.

I think we should bring back peg boys. If we're going to do this, let's do this.

go bowe
09-23-2010, 03:44 PM
If that was really his goal, he could ram it through the way health care was rammed through. The problem is that he has no political capital, and a strong majority of citizens oppose it. This way, he gets to fire up his base by painting Republicans as homophobes while not really pissing off 60% of the population by passing an unpopular measure.i guess i pay too much attention to the left wing msm...

i thought it was more than 60% in favor of repealing dadt...

edit: i should have said 57%...

go bowe
09-23-2010, 03:48 PM
I think we should bring back peg boys. If we're going to do this, let's do this.what are peg boys?

even wiki doesn't have an entry for peg boys...

edit- never mind...

google is my friend...

patteeu
09-23-2010, 04:56 PM
reid has a goal? i didn't give him that much credit...

seriously, at least one of his goals would appear to be the repeal of the dadt policy...

i suppose we can assume that he wants some political gain out of it since we are approaching the mid-terms...

was there some other goal you had in mind?

His goal couldn't have been to repeal DADT unless he's an incompetent vote counter (or unless he knows that he'd lose some democrat votes if he proposed something that wouldn't provoke a filibuster). His goal seems to be, as Saul Good already pointed out, to show his base that he's trying to do something while avoiding actually doing it and while getting Republicans to filibuster a defense funding bill.

go bowe
09-23-2010, 05:26 PM
His goal couldn't have been to repeal DADT unless he's an incompetent vote counter (or unless he knows that he'd lose some democrat votes if he proposed something that wouldn't provoke a filibuster). His goal seems to be, as Saul Good already pointed out, to show his base that he's trying to do something while avoiding actually doing it and while getting Republicans to filibuster a defense funding bill.incompetent vote counter?

i'd vote for incompetent in general...

guy's one of the worst majority leaders i've ever seen...

i can see the getting republicans to filibuster a defense funding bill...

but why in hell wouldn't he want to repeal dadt?

he's even dumber than i gave him credit for... :shake: :shake: :shake:

patteeu
09-23-2010, 07:06 PM
incompetent vote counter?

i'd vote for incompetent in general...

guy's one of the worst majority leaders i've ever seen...

i can see the getting republicans to filibuster a defense funding bill...

but why in hell wouldn't he want to repeal dadt?

he's even dumber than i gave him credit for... :shake: :shake: :shake:

My theory is that it's because it would do more to energize the Republican base beyond their already energized levels than it would do to energize his own base. By making a token gesture to get it passed but letting it fail he gets a payoff from the segment of his own base that cares a lot about it without stimulating the much larger segment of the Republican base that doesn't want to see open gays serving in the military.

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 07:22 PM
My theory is that it's because it would do more to energize the Republican base beyond their already energized levels than it would do to energize his own base. By making a token gesture to get it passed but letting it fail he gets a payoff from the segment of his own base that cares a lot about it without stimulating the much larger segment of the Republican base that doesn't want to see open gays serving in the military.

I completely agree with this if you replace "Republican base" with "swing voters". People in this country just aren't on board with expanding gay rights. There is a reason that gay marriage has been defeated every time it has been put to a vote. It's a ballot stuffer for Republicans.

patteeu
09-23-2010, 07:59 PM
I completely agree with this if you replace "Republican base" with "swing voters". People in this country just aren't on board with expanding gay rights. There is a reason that gay marriage has been defeated every time it has been put to a vote. It's a ballot stuffer for Republicans.

Good correction. IMO, it's not necessarily that there are more people in the swing voting block that oppose gays in the military (although maybe that's the case). The key factor is that the ones who might let this issue swing them to one side or the other are overwhelmingly on the side that opposes it.

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 08:09 PM
Good correction. IMO, it's not necessarily that there are more people in the swing voting block that oppose gays in the military (although maybe that's the case). The key factor is that the ones who might let this issue swing them to one side or the other are overwhelmingly on the side that opposes it.

Exactly. The pro-gay rights crowd is overwhelmingly Democrat. They aren't going anywhere in November except further to the left. Those in the middle tend to be against special rights for gays. It's a wedge issue that works for Republicans just as class warfare is a wedge issue that works for Democrats.

patteeu
09-23-2010, 08:13 PM
Exactly. The pro-gay rights crowd is overwhelmingly Democrat. They aren't going anywhere in November except further to the left. Those in the middle tend to be against special rights for gays. It's a wedge issue that works for Republicans just as class warfare is a wedge issue that works for Democrats.

And I suspect there are even some wavering democrats who could be pushed over the edge by passing gays in the military whereas there are very few wavering Republicans who will be moved in the other direction, particularly in the current political climate.

Saul Good
09-23-2010, 09:02 PM
I'm a perfect example. I support gay rights, but I'm not going to consider voting Democrat over this.

go bowe
09-23-2010, 09:35 PM
My theory is that it's because it would do more to energize the Republican base beyond their already energized levels than it would do to energize his own base. By making a token gesture to get it passed but letting it fail he gets a payoff from the segment of his own base that cares a lot about it without stimulating the much larger segment of the Republican base that doesn't want to see open gays serving in the military.why would he care about whether or not he stimulates the repub base?

they're all gonna vote against dems anyway...

except in harry's state, where sharon angle has gift-wrapped his reelection...

way to go tea partiers... :( :( :(

go bowe
09-23-2010, 09:37 PM
I completely agree with this if you replace "Republican base" with "swing voters". People in this country just aren't on board with expanding gay rights. There is a reason that gay marriage has been defeated every time it has been put to a vote. It's a ballot stuffer for Republicans.i'm not sure but didn't vermont vote for gay marriage?

and connecticut...

patteeu
09-23-2010, 10:19 PM
I'm a perfect example. I support gay rights, but I'm not going to consider voting Democrat over this.

Same here, except I don't call this sort acceptance of gays "gay rights".

Mr. Kotter
09-23-2010, 10:50 PM
Jamal needs more carries, and Cassel (to this point) sucks??? :shrug:

Just sayin.... :hmmm:

Donger
09-24-2010, 09:53 AM
Because of posts like

Oh, you find facts lamentable.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 10:02 AM
why would he care about whether or not he stimulates the repub base?

they're all gonna vote against dems anyway...

except in harry's state, where sharon angle has gift-wrapped his reelection...

way to go tea partiers... :( :( :(

Mid term elections tend to be turnout. He doesn't expect Republicans to vote for him, but he does want them to stay home. The last thing he wants is to encourage them to vote or even donate.

Regarding Reid's seat, don't be so sure that he is going to win. Its at least 50% that he loses. The latest polls show a dead heat, and the tea party base is fired up. The question is whether or not Reid,s supporters care enough to vote. Why would they? He's awful, and the state has the highest unemployment in the country. Anyone who votes for him deserves what they get.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 10:42 AM
And Collins flat said Reid had her vote but Reid thought it more important to use gays as a political football when his party is in the shit. Fair enough but bitch about "shills" when you're desperately heaving chum into the water hoping to get a bite. Bottom line, they could have run the DADT repeal and DREAM while Teddy was still kicking but it didn't rank then, it didn't rank for 19 months and it only ranks now because the left needs something, anything, to distract from the fact that they've grossly mismanaged the economy, dug a multi trillion dollar deficit, passed a health care reform act that not a single one of them are running on, passed a commodity reform act that none of them are running on, squandered the largest congressional majorities in decades and pissed away Presidential approval and popularity at a record pace.

Reid's management style has been to attempt to roll Senators at every turn, breaking agreements and putting amendments off limits and has the gall to wonder why nobody will roll over and play his game.

All of that and you can honestly still sit there befuddled that people can see through the bullshit lines and political ploys of the left? Get checked man.

None of this is to say the Republicans won't **** it their shot either. Their leadership McConnell/Boehner have shown themselves capable of ****ing up a wet dream. But that's a different discussion at a different time.

Reid engineered a tactic that is so mind-boggingly common that it's become incredibly clear that you haven't followed the inner workings of Congress until Obama took office. Period.

Susan Collins has supported Republicans engineering this same tactic. Everybody does it.

I'm not saying that makes it right. But when she pretends she's suddenly indignant because Democrats are doing something that she herself has done aplenty, she is feasting off the ignorance of newbies like yourself.

Follow the politics. Susan Collins doesn't want DADT repealed. She's giving gays lip service because she represents a blue state.

I know you think I'm some dipshit, but if you listen to what I am saying, it will slowly start to make sense.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 10:47 AM
I don't see Republicans bitching. I just see you.

I have no idea what that means.

Susan Collin's own bitching about process has been documented throughout this thread.

The Democrats have a hammerlock on the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. Rather than actually work to get this done, they attached it to a defense funding bill that they knew wouldn't pass, and true believers like youu lap it up.

It's a tactic Republicans use even more when they are in office, Saul. Attach unfavorable legislature to defense bill to paint any and all "no" votes as anti-military.

Do you honestly think Democrats invented this tactic?

They didn't. Republicans do it en masse, and Collins endorses it when they do. So when Collins is complaining about Democrats doing it, she's basically feasting off the ignorance of people who've just started taking an interest in the inner workings of Congress, much like yourself who is pretending this is a new and suddenly objectionable thing.

Being pissed at the Republicans for winning this one is like a Jayhawks fan being pissed at NDSU for winning the opener. Your side has all of the advantages.

We don't have 60 votes.

mlyonsd
09-24-2010, 10:48 AM
Reid engineered a tactic that is so mind-boggingly common that it's become incredibly clear that you haven't followed the inner workings of Congress until Obama took office. Period.

Susan Collins has supported Republicans engineering this same tactic. Everybody does it.

I'm not saying that makes it right. But when she pretends she's suddenly indignant because Democrats are doing something that she herself has done aplenty, she is feasting off the ignorance of newbies like yourself.

Follow the politics. Susan Collins doesn't want DADT repealed. She's giving gays lip service because she represents a blue state.

I know you think I'm some dipshit, but if you listen to what I am saying, it will slowly start to make sense.

You don't have that quite right.

All she wanted was to be able to attach amendments. It was Reid's call not to allow that. He could have had her vote by changing his mind.

He gets just as much blame as the republicans. Period.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 10:49 AM
Susan Collins is in the apparent majority on the merits of this issue but she couldn't countenance the process that Harry Reid employed.

Which, for the record, is a process that she herself magically begins to endorse once Republicans are in power.

She's not intellectually honest. She's a partisan shill who's paying lip service to gays because she represents a blue state.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 10:50 AM
The people who want a boyfriend but don't have one probably think it's a serious difference.

You've lost me.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 10:53 AM
I completely agree with this if you replace "Republican base" with "swing voters". People in this country just aren't on board with expanding gay rights. There is a reason that gay marriage has been defeated every time it has been put to a vote. It's a ballot stuffer for Republicans.

In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html), 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 10:56 AM
In summary: Republicans do it too. Democrats can't get anything done with only 59 Senators (never mind the fact that they didn't do it when they had 60). Boo hoo. Blame the minority party.

This will play well in November. How many jobs did the stimulus create while I was typing this post, by the way?

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 10:58 AM
You don't have that quite right.

All she wanted was to be able to attach amendments. It was Reid's call not to allow that. He could have had her vote by changing his mind.

He gets just as much blame as the republicans. Period.

Again, extremely typical tactic no matter what party is in power.

Follow the politics for a moment:

1. Majority party attaches a certain measure to a defense measure so the minority party will force yes, knowing that the minority won't want to vote for it.

2. Minority counters by trying to force a vote on tons of amendments designed specifically to force the majority into embarrassing votes, knowing that the majority won't want to vote on the amendments.

3. Majority tries to force a vote. Minority filibusters.

If you think anything in this sequence is new, or doesn't happen all the time during a Republican-controlled Congress, or that Collins is principled in her refusal to vote for repeal... you're the kind of person the Republican Party needs to turn out in November.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:01 AM
In summary: Republicans do it too. Democrats can't get anything done with only 59 Senators (never mind the fact that they didn't do it when they had 60). Boo hoo. Blame the minority party.

Liberals like myself were incredibly upset that the Democrats didn't act on this sooner. I blame them just as much.

But Democrats cast two votes against DADT repeal out of 59. The Republicans cast 0.

So let's not be confused about which party is anti-gay. And which party wants DADT to stay in place.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:02 AM
By the way, Saul, it doesn't say a lot about your POV on this topic when your argument sounds like this:

Saul: Boo hoo, Democrats used this crappy tactic.

D: Republicans have used it countless times before.

Saul: Oh hey look who's boo-hooing over Republicans using this crappy tactic!

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 11:04 AM
In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802561.html), 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.

Sounds like the Democrats should have passed this in 2008 then, huh? Was that the Republicans' fault, too?

Also, any poll showing that two out of three conservatives supports it must be accurate. 80% probably support partial birth abortion performed by gay Muslims who are in the country illegally.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:05 AM
Sounds like the Democrats should have passed this in 2008 then, huh? Was that the Republicans' fault, too?

I've already responded to this argument.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:08 AM
Reid engineered a tactic that is so mind-boggingly common that it's become incredibly clear that you haven't followed the inner workings of Congress until Obama took office. Period.

Susan Collins has supported Republicans engineering this same tactic. Everybody does it.

I'm not saying that makes it right. But when she pretends she's suddenly indignant because Democrats are doing something that she herself has done aplenty, she is feasting off the ignorance of newbies like yourself.

Follow the politics. Susan Collins doesn't want DADT repealed. She's giving gays lip service because she represents a blue state.

I know you think I'm some dipshit, but if you listen to what I am saying, it will slowly start to make sense.

Why doesn't Harry Reid put Susan Collins' feet to the fire by proposing the repeal of DADT without the process shenanigans? The answer is that Harry Reid doesn't want it to pass. Listen to what several of us are saying and it will slowly start to make sense to you.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 11:08 AM
By the way, Saul, it doesn't say a lot about your POV on this topic when your argument sounds like this:

Saul: Boo hoo, Democrats used this crappy tactic.

D: Republicans have used it countless times before.

Saul: Oh hey look who's boo-hooing over Republicans using this crappy tactic!

I was crying about this tactic? Care to show me where you found this little nugget? I don't care either way. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that if Reid really wanted this, he wouldn't have gone about it in this manner.

The Republicans won. You are the one crying, not me.

mlyonsd
09-24-2010, 11:10 AM
Again, extremely typical tactic no matter what party is in power.

Follow the politics for a moment:

1. Majority party attaches a certain measure to a defense measure so the minority party will force yes, knowing that the minority won't want to vote for it.

2. Minority counters by trying to force a vote on tons of amendments designed specifically to force the majority into embarrassing votes, knowing that the majority won't want to vote on the amendments.

3. Majority tries to force a vote. Minority filibusters.

If you think anything in this sequence is new, or doesn't happen all the time during a Republican-controlled Congress, or that Collins is principled in her refusal to vote for repeal... you're the kind of person the Republican Party needs to turn out in November.

I never said it was new. I just pointed out Reid is just as guilty as Collins.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:12 AM
I have no idea what that means.

Susan Collin's own bitching about process has been documented throughout this thread.



It's a tactic Republicans use even more when they are in office, Saul. Attach unfavorable legislature to defense bill to paint any and all "no" votes as anti-military.

Do you honestly think Democrats invented this tactic?

They didn't. Republicans do it en masse, and Collins endorses it when they do. So when Collins is complaining about Democrats doing it, she's basically feasting off the ignorance of people who've just started taking an interest in the inner workings of Congress, much like yourself who is pretending this is a new and suddenly objectionable thing.



We don't have 60 votes.

I see that you don't really understand Collins' complaint. She's not simply objecting to the fact that DADT repeal was attached to the defense spending bill. She's objecting to the combination of that plus the fact that the democrats aren't allowing Republicans to offer amendments and fully debate the measure.

I'd like to see an example where Collins' supported the same tactic under a Republican majority leader.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:12 AM
Which, for the record, is a process that she herself magically begins to endorse once Republicans are in power.

She's not intellectually honest. She's a partisan shill who's paying lip service to gays because she represents a blue state.

Link?

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Why doesn't Harry Reid put Susan Collins' feet to the fire by proposing the repeal of DADT without the process shenanigans?

I'm not excusing the Democrats. There are a ton of vulnerable Democrats in red states who don't want to have pro-gay votes on the record. This was as much disguising their vote as it was forcing the Republicans' hands.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 11:14 AM
I see that you don't really understand Collins' complaint. She's not simply objecting to the fact that DADT repeal was attached to the defense spending bill. She's objecting to the combination of that plus the fact that the democrats aren't allowing Republicans to offer amendments and fully debate the measure.

I'd like to see an example where Collins' supported the same tactic under a Republican majority leader.

Is this where Direckshun tells you that he doesn't understand?

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:15 AM
Liberals like myself were incredibly upset that the Democrats didn't act on this sooner. I blame them just as much.

But Democrats cast two votes against DADT repeal out of 59. The Republicans cast 0.

So let's not be confused about which party is anti-gay. And which party wants DADT to stay in place.

Which party is anti-gay? The one that's playing politics with the issue instead of passing it when they have the votes to pass it or the party that largely opposes it but doesn't have enough votes to prevent it?

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:16 AM
I'm not excusing the Democrats. There are a ton of vulnerable Democrats in red states who don't want to have pro-gay votes on the record. This was as much disguising their vote as it was forcing the Republicans' hands.

It didn't force Republicans' hands. It was all about disguising democrats' votes.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:16 AM
I was crying about this tactic? Care to show me where you found this little nugget? I don't care either way. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that if Reid really wanted this, he wouldn't have gone about it in this manner.

If you're claiming that this is an objectionable tactic, while critiquing me for pointing out the same thing under Republicans.

The Republicans won. You are the one crying, not me.

Unlike you, I genuinely don't care which party wins.

I want gays to win, and the military to win. If they win, I'm happy. This was a vote they lost.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 11:17 AM
I'm not excusing the Democrats. There are a ton of vulnerable Democrats in red states who don't want to have pro-gay votes on the record. This was as much disguising their vote as it was forcing the Republicans' hands.

Reid masterfully forced the Republicans, hands to smack him upside the head. What a brilliant leader he is.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:17 AM
It didn't force Republicans' hands. It was all about disguising democrats' votes.

No, pat, it was about both.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:18 AM
I see that you don't really understand Collins' complaint. She's not simply objecting to the fact that DADT repeal was attached to the defense spending bill. She's objecting to the combination of that plus the fact that the democrats aren't allowing Republicans to offer amendments and fully debate the measure.

Again, common tactic during Republican-controlled Congress.

It's a bipartisan tactic, if you will.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:18 AM
No, pat, it was about both.

OK, well then it failed on the first front.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:19 AM
Is this where Direckshun tells you that he doesn't understand?

Reid masterfully forced the Republicans, hands to smack him upside the head. What a brilliant leader he is.

I'm guessing you've skidded from the "Direckshun is a reasonable but misguided guy" POV you used to espouse to jumping the pile-on bandwagon.

Welcome home.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:19 AM
OK, well then it failed on the first front.

From the sounds of it, it failed on both.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:19 AM
Again, common tactic during Republican-controlled Congress.

It's a bipartisan tactic, if you will.

Let me know when you find an actual example of Susan Collins supporting this. I'll wait.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:24 AM
Let me know when you find an actual example of Susan Collins supporting this. I'll wait.

Are you making the claim that this is a tactic that Republicans do not use when they are in power?

Bill Frist broke a Democratic filibuster by limiting Democrats from introducing amendments of a bill to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits filed by victims of gun crimes.

Guess who voted for cloture. I'll give you a guess.

Otter
09-24-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm not reading through every post but did anyone answer 'because the sleazeball Harry Reid who should be drawn and quartered tried to lump this into a defense bill along with amnesty for illegal immigrants'?

Because that would be my answer. Don't pin this on the Repubs, blame it on that waste of skin in Nevada.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 11:26 AM
If you're claiming that this is an objectionable tactic, while critiquing me for pointing out the same thing under Republicans.



Unlike you, I genuinely don't care which party wins.

I want gays to win, and the military to win. If they win, I'm happy. This was a vote they lost.

So you are just talking in circles now. First, I was crying about it. Now, I'm just celebrating because Republicans won (even though I already stated that I. Think gays should be allowed in the military). Finally, you are upset that the military lost (even though they are on the record as opposing gays joining).

Tell me, Direckshun, what does cognative dissonance feel like?

patteeu
09-24-2010, 11:31 AM
Are you making the claim that this is a tactic that Republicans do not use when they are in power?

Bill Frist broke a Democratic filibuster by limiting Democrats from introducing amendments of a bill to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits filed by victims of gun crimes.

Guess who voted for cloture. I'll give you a guess.

Where's that link I asked you for?

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:32 AM
So you are just talking in circles now. First, I was crying about it.

You said I was crying about Republicans using the tactic.

You said Collins was right about Democrats using this tactic. Which seems pretty much exactly what I was saying about Republicans.

So follow me on the logic train:

P1: X points out crappy partisan tactics = X must be crying.
P2: Saul points out crappy partisan tactics.
:. : Saul must be crying.

Now, I'm just celebrating because Republicans won.

I said that?

Finally, you are upset that the military lost (even though they are on the record as opposing gays joining).

Yup.

Although tons of military brass has since come out against DADT. I believe there's a pending military review of the policy to come out in December.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:33 AM
Where's that link I asked you for?

I don't keep links for however many years since that happened.

You can probably google it.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 11:44 AM
A question for both pat and Saul:

If you both are in favor of repealing DADT, and allowing gays to serve open in the military -- why oppose adding it on to a defense bill, which you also favor?

I imagine both of you would have voted, if you were Senators, to uphold the filibuster? Why?

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 12:03 PM
A question for both pat and Saul:

If you both are in favor of repealing DADT, and allowing gays to serve open in the military -- why oppose adding it on to a defense bill, which you also favor?

I imagine both of you would have voted, if you were Senators, to uphold the filibuster? Why?

I like to believe that I would stand for principle. Tying bills like this together is a large part of why Washington is broken.

I acknowledge that both sides do it.

stevieray
09-24-2010, 12:08 PM
I'm guessing you've skidded from the "Direckshun is a reasonable but misguided guy" POV you used to espouse to jumping the pile-on bandwagon.

Welcome home.
..no wonder TJ posts the pic of you running away. you're a coward.

..and now you're playing the the vicitm. again.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 12:25 PM
I don't keep links for however many years since that happened.

You can probably google it.

But you remember the details of the debate and whether or not the junior senator from Maine voted for cloture for however many years, right?

Since you theoretically know what you're talking about and I don't, it would be far easier for you to google it and post the link.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 12:25 PM
I like to believe that I would stand for principle. Tying bills like this together is a large part of why Washington is broken.

I acknowledge that both sides do it.

So you would have voted to break the filibuster?

patteeu
09-24-2010, 12:29 PM
A question for both pat and Saul:

If you both are in favor of repealing DADT, and allowing gays to serve open in the military -- why oppose adding it on to a defense bill, which you also favor?

I imagine both of you would have voted, if you were Senators, to uphold the filibuster? Why?

I'm personally in favor of it, but I'm not in favor of forcing it over the objections of the majority through the use of divisive legislative gimmicks or over the objections of the military because I don't think it's very important one way or the other. One thing that is important though is exposing the democrats and Harry Reid when they pull stunts like this to the detriment of the party that I think has the best vision for American progress. If it was a straight up vote and the military supported it, I'd cast my vote in favor.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm personally in favor of it, but I'm not in favor of forcing it over the objections of the majority through the use of divisive legislative gimmicks or over the objections of the military because I don't think it's very important one way or the other.

We'll leave aside the "military objects to it" bit because that's getting murkier as the days go by, and tons of military brass has come out in support of repealing DADT. And the majority of the Senate, by the way, wants to repeal DADT.

But I'd like to get your opinion down:

You want to repeal DADT.

You want to continue funding the military (I assume you had no hesitations with the defense bill).

But put the two together and BAM! You filibuster.

Would that be right?

patteeu
09-24-2010, 12:48 PM
We'll leave aside the "military objects to it" bit because that's getting murkier as the days go by, and tons of military brass has come out in support of repealing DADT. And the majority of the Senate, by the way, wants to repeal DADT.

I don't know whether the military objects to it or not. I'm just saying that if they did, I'd defer to their judgment (as long as it had to do with military effectiveness) even though I personally think DADT should be repealed. Under that circumstance, I'd fall back on the position that we should be working toward a day when the military could support the repeal. For example, if what craneref said earlier in the thread is true and that logistics would be a big issue, then I'd want the logistics issue to be worked so that it wouldn't continue to be a roadblock forever, but in the meantime I wouldn't force the issue, especially during a time of war.

But I'd like to get your opinion down:

You want to repeal DADT.

You want to continue funding the military (I assume you had no hesitations with the defense bill).

But put the two together and BAM! You filibuster.

Would that be right?

For the sake of argument, we'll say that the military's judgment is that repealing DADT would be no problem.

That leaves 3 relevant factors:

1) I want to repeal DADT (minor importance)

2) I want to fund the military (major importance)

3) I don't want Harry Reid to continue to steamroll Republicans (secondary, but major importance)

If I thought the military would eventually be funded, 3 would outweigh 1 in my calculus so I'd filibuster.

If I thought military funding was really at stake, I'd vote for cloture.

Repealing DADT pales in comparison to my other two considerations so it really doesn't impact my decision much at all.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 12:56 PM
So you would have voted to break the filibuster?

How in the hell did you get that out of my post?

Saul: This is an example of why Washington is broken.

Direckshun: So you're in favor of it?

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 02:22 PM
How in the hell did you get that out of my post?

Saul: This is an example of why Washington is broken.

Direckshun: So you're in favor of it?

Would you have voted to break the filibuster?

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 02:25 PM
I don't know whether the military objects to it or not. I'm just saying that if they did, I'd defer to their judgment (as long as it had to do with military effectiveness) even though I personally think DADT should be repealed. Under that circumstance, I'd fall back on the position that we should be working toward a day when the military could support the repeal. For example, if what craneref said earlier in the thread is true and that logistics would be a big issue, then I'd want the logistics issue to be worked so that it wouldn't continue to be a roadblock forever, but in the meantime I wouldn't force the issue, especially during a time of war.

Somewhat related note: who from the military would you need to hear from in order to believe the military supports repealing DADT?

Joint chiefs? SecDef? A poll of the troops?

That leaves 3 relevant factors:

1) I want to repeal DADT (minor importance)

2) I want to fund the military (major importance)

3) I don't want Harry Reid to continue to steamroll Republicans (secondary, but major importance)

If I thought the military would eventually be funded, 3 would outweigh 1 in my calculus so I'd filibuster.

So you would vote against the defense funding you like, and against repealing DADT which you want, because Harry Reid didn't ask nicely.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 02:27 PM
Would you have voted to break the filibuster?

No

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 02:30 PM
Somewhat related note: who from the military would you need to hear from in order to believe the military supports repealing DADT?

Joint chiefs? SecDef? A poll of the troops?



So you would vote against the defense funding you like, and against repealing DADT which you want, because Harry Reid didn't ask nicely.
I'm pretty sure that the troops will get their funding. Don't think the Democrats want to have to explain why they wouldn't fund troops unless we allow gays to enter the military.

You will try to spin it some other way, but Republicans will win that soundbite.

The Mad Crapper
09-24-2010, 02:32 PM
Somewhat related note: who from the military would you need to hear from in order to believe the military supports repealing DADT?

Joint chiefs? SecDef? A poll of the troops?



So you would vote against the defense funding you like, and against repealing DADT which you want, because Harry Reid didn't ask nicely.

You're an idiot.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 02:45 PM
No

So you would vote against repealing DADT which you want, because Harry Reid didn't ask nicely.

I'm still trying to figure out why you'd filibuster...

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 02:51 PM
So you would vote against repealing DADT which you want, because Harry Reid didn't ask nicely.

I'm still trying to figure out why you'd filibuster...

I would stand on principle. I don't expect you to understand.

Iowanian
09-24-2010, 02:52 PM
Somewhat related note: who from the military would you need to hear from in order to believe the military supports repealing DADT?

A poll of the troops?

.


If you polled the troops, it wouldn't even be close...It would fail miserably.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 02:56 PM
Somewhat related note: who from the military would you need to hear from in order to believe the military supports repealing DADT?

Joint chiefs? SecDef? A poll of the troops?

It wouldn't be a poll of the troops. It would have to come from a consensus among senior officers that I trust, with particular attention paid to those senior officers involved in prosecuting our wars.

So you would vote against the defense funding you like, and against repealing DADT which you want, because Harry Reid didn't ask nicely.

Those are your words. I used my own, which I think were pretty clear.

Frankie
09-24-2010, 02:56 PM
Why did Republicans filibuster a repeal of DADT?

I don't know. Why did Republicans held up the OBAMA TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS?

patteeu
09-24-2010, 02:58 PM
I don't know. Why did Republicans held up the OBAMA TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS?

That didn't happen. The tax cut issue was shelved by democrats... you know, the people with huge majorities in both houses right now.

As The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/120687-dems-put-off-tax-cut-votes-until-after-election) reports:

A rift between centrist and liberal Democrats in both chambers of Congress has derailed plans for House and Senate votes on extending tax cuts before the election.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 03:01 PM
I don't know. Why did Republicans held up the OBAMA TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS?

Help me out. The current rate is what? The rate would have been cut to what?

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 03:57 PM
I would stand on principle. I don't expect you to understand.

You have been absurdly snippy all thread. Someone has pissed in your Cheerios and I love it.

The fact of the matter is, your "standing on principle" because of crappy legislative manuvering would preclude you from voting on... anything, really. You would filibuster everything, Democrat and Republican, if you stayed true to that kind of purism.

So one of us (you) sounds like an idealist wrapped up in visions of a political utopia, and one of us (me) sounds like a pragmatist who understands the way the real world works. Curious, since the exact opposite of that narrative is what you've no doubt convinced yourself of.

In other words, you're pretzel-ing yourself into some really dumb arguments because you don't want to come out of it looking like you agree with me or the Democrats. Bravo. Pete and blaise will be having a tea party with you shortly, I'm sure.

The bigger point, though, that doesn't involve you being a nitwit, is that between the two of us, *I* would be voting to help repeal DADT. *You* wouldn't be. So pardon me if I don't exactly take your pro-gay posturing too seriously, nor will basically anybody in the gay community.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 04:02 PM
It wouldn't be a poll of the troops. It would have to come from a consensus among senior officers that I trust, with particular attention paid to those senior officers involved in prosecuting our wars.

We'll see how closely you stick to those words in the coming months.

Those are your words. I used my own, which I think were pretty clear.

That because of your belief in legislative purism, you'd filibuster repealing DADT.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 04:13 PM
You have been absurdly snippy all thread. Someone has pissed in your Cheerios and I love it.

The fact of the matter is, your "standing on principle" because of crappy legislative manuvering would preclude you from voting on... anything, really. You would filibuster everything, Democrat and Republican, if you stayed true to that kind of purism.

So one of us (you) sounds like an idealist wrapped up in visions of a political utopia, and one of us (me) sounds like a pragmatist who understands the way the real world works. Curious, since the exact opposite of that narrative is what you've no doubt convinced yourself of.

In other words, you're pretzel-ing yourself into some really dumb arguments because you don't want to come out of it looking like you agree with me or the Democrats. Bravo. Pete and blaise will be having a tea party with you shortly, I'm sure.

The bigger point, though, that doesn't involve you being a nitwit, is that between the two of us, *I* would be voting to help repeal DADT. *You* wouldn't be. So pardon me if I don't exactly take your pro-gay posturing too seriously, nor will basically anybody in the gay community.

You've been intentionally obtuse throughout this thread. I have come to expect more from you.

As long as I have some theoretical vote in the Senate, I'm not going to settle for a crappy bill. The troops will get their funding, and DDDT will get its day in court (that is if Reid has the integrity to bring it up on its own merits). If that means that it stays in place, I guess the gays can stop voting Republican. Oh wait, they vote Democrat and still didn't get a vote when there were 60 Dems. Well, they're used to getting f****ed in the ass.

Direckshun
09-24-2010, 04:59 PM
As long as I have some theoretical vote in the Senate, I'm not going to settle for a crappy bill. The troops will get their funding, and DDDT will get its day in court (that is if Reid has the integrity to bring it up on its own merits).

I don't understand why it's a big screaming deal to you that these things were combined? Enough for you to filibuster DADT repeal.

Maybe you can explain that to me, oh Saul the intellectually honest one.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 05:04 PM
I don't understand why it's a big screaming deal to you that these things were combined? Enough for you to filibuster DADT repeal.

Maybe you can explain that to me, oh Saul the intellectually honest one.

Its not these two items per se. Its the whole concept of tying together unrelated legislation. This is where we get all of the pork. The quid pro quo has got to stop.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 05:05 PM
Help me out. The current rate is what? The rate would have been cut to what?

Frankie will never answer this.

mlyonsd
09-24-2010, 05:13 PM
Evidently the democrats weren't really serious about passing it since they held the card that they chose not to play.

If I were to guess I'm thinking Tip O'Neil is somewhere looking down at Reid going :facepalm:.

mlyonsd
09-24-2010, 05:14 PM
Frankie will never answer this.Frankie means well.

patteeu
09-24-2010, 05:16 PM
You have been absurdly snippy all thread. Someone has pissed in your Cheerios and I love it.

The fact of the matter is, your "standing on principle" because of crappy legislative manuvering would preclude you from voting on... anything, really. You would filibuster everything, Democrat and Republican, if you stayed true to that kind of purism.

So one of us (you) sounds like an idealist wrapped up in visions of a political utopia, and one of us (me) sounds like a pragmatist who understands the way the real world works. Curious, since the exact opposite of that narrative is what you've no doubt convinced yourself of.

In other words, you're pretzel-ing yourself into some really dumb arguments because you don't want to come out of it looking like you agree with me or the Democrats. Bravo. Pete and blaise will be having a tea party with you shortly, I'm sure.

The bigger point, though, that doesn't involve you being a nitwit, is that between the two of us, *I* would be voting to help repeal DADT. *You* wouldn't be. So pardon me if I don't exactly take your pro-gay posturing too seriously, nor will basically anybody in the gay community.

Who cares what you or anyone in your version of the gay community thinks? IMO, you and your version of the gay community put way too much importance on this issue. It's not that important. It can wait. We've got much bigger fish to fry for all Americans including an ongoing war and a serious economic malaise. The fact that Saul and I don't want to sacrifice all else to let gays out of the military closet doesn't mean that he and I aren't among the best political friends a gay American could have.

Frankie
09-24-2010, 08:29 PM
Frankie will never answer this.I admit I should have been more clear or careful on wording this. Here's the point though: When some sort of a tax hike is needed to fund the Government keeping the middle class safe from those hikes anounts to tax cut. Basically a tax cut on the tax hike. The Bush Tax cuts mostly benefitted the super rich and ended up pushing us into a recession that hopefully has been stopped now from turning into a full-fledged depression. Anyway, it was a 10 year thing that is now mercifully due to end. If the Right keeps insisting that this is now "Obama's Economy," it stands to reason that Obama's tax proposal that wants to make the above tax cuts permanent should be called "Obama's Tax cut" for the middle class.

I hope this clears any misunderstanding. I just came in this thread with a one liner hinting at what I view as the Republican loyalty not the the average folk but to Corporate America. I have no desire to hi-jack Direckshun's thread. There is another thread about the Tax cuts for the rich that this should be discussed in.

Frankie
09-24-2010, 08:35 PM
Evidently the democrats weren't really serious about passing it since they held the card that they chose not to play.

If I were to guess I'm thinking Tip O'Neil is somewhere looking down at Reid going :facepalm:.

I admit we have more Dems with balls in the house than in the senate.

We need guys like him in the senate too.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/05/27/alg_weiner.jpg

Frankie
09-24-2010, 08:35 PM
Frankie means well.

Always.

Saul Good
09-24-2010, 10:37 PM
Who cares what you or anyone in your version of the gay community thinks? IMO, you and your version of the gay community put way too much importance on this issue. It's not that important. It can wait. We've got much bigger fish to fry for all Americans including an ongoing war and a serious economic malaise. The fact that Saul and I don't want to sacrifice all else to let gays out of the military closet doesn't mean that he and I aren't among the best political friends a gay American could have.

Its amazing to me that people can be so blind as not to realize this. I am a white, upper-middle class conservative male who happens to be sympathetic to the gay struggle. People like Direkshun are why I don't lose any sleep when those on "my side" of this issue lose.

irishjayhawk
09-24-2010, 10:42 PM
"In-moral"


That is all.

Frankie
09-25-2010, 12:23 AM
I am a white, upper-middle class conservative male who happens to be sympathetic to the gay struggle. People like Direkshun are why I don't lose any sleep when those on "my side" of this issue lose.

Then despite your claim you are not "sympathetic to the gay struggle." Do you dislike a song that you like just because someone who don't care for begins to hum it? The core of your values should not change or they are really not your values.

patteeu
09-25-2010, 01:05 AM
Then despite your claim you are not "sympathetic to the gay struggle." Do you dislike a song that you like just because someone who don't care for begins to hum it? The core of your values should not change or they are really not your values.

That's idiotic.

"Sympathetic" doesn't mean you hold it above all else in importance. I'm sympathetic with my neighbor who has a flat tire and under many circumstances I'd help them out, but if I've got a court date that I need to get to, they're going to have to call AAA or another friend.

Frankie
09-25-2010, 01:09 AM
That's idiotic.

"Sympathetic" doesn't mean you hold it above all else in importance. I'm sympathetic with my neighbor who has a flat tire and under many circumstances I'd help them out, but if I've got a court date that I need to get to, they're going to have to call AAA or another friend.

Sorry pat. This scenario has no relevance to what Saul said.

patteeu
09-25-2010, 01:36 AM
Sorry pat. This scenario has no relevance to what Saul said.

The problem seems to be that you don't understand what he said.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 06:19 AM
Its not these two items per se. Its the whole concept of tying together unrelated legislation. This is where we get all of the pork. The quid pro quo has got to stop.

PORK? That's what this is all about? ROFL Holy shit, Saul.

So basically you're striving for a fairy tale where earmarks no longer exist. Right? No wonder you pulled the lever for Palin. I'm guessing there's not a single piece of legislation over the past 100 years you'd vote for as a Hypothetical Senator.

This is something you like, tied with something else you like, and you say you'd filibuster it because it breaches your utopian protocol.

You'd either be a really inactive Senator, or a really shitty Senator. Probably both.

Either way, you'd get nothing done.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 06:30 AM
Where are you from, Saul? Missouri? I'm willing to bet you've cast a vote for Kit Bond. Tons of pork.

Kansas? I'm willing to bet you've cast a vote for Brownback. Pork o' plenty.

You voted for McCain in 2008 -- a guy who talked tough on earmarks but has an extensive, 20-year history of bringing them in for Arizona.

Have there been any legislation in your lifetime that you wouldn't have filibustered? I guarantee you there was pork in there.

But no -- gays somehow being allowed to be in relationships with other gay people and still serve in Uncle Sam's military -- that's where Saul's Great Stand On Earmarks makes its debut.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 06:30 AM
Saul's transformation from Realistic, Political Beast to Utopian, Anti-Earmarks Prince:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ms05La1pDIU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ms05La1pDIU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Mitch McConnell celebrates. Pro-gay earmarks everywhere shiver in their sequins.

Saul Good
09-25-2010, 07:29 AM
PORK? That's what this is all about? ROFL Holy shit, Saul.

So basically you're striving for a fairy tale where earmarks no longer exist. Right? No wonder you pulled the lever for Palin. I'm guessing there's not a single piece of legislation over the past 100 years you'd vote for as a Hypothetical Senator.

This is something you like, tied with something else you like, and you say you'd filibuster it because it breaches your utopian protocol.

You'd either be a really inactive Senator, or a really shitty Senator. Probably both.

Either way, you'd get nothing done.

You are getting really adept at missing the point. Its telling that Frankie is the only other poster on your side here, but he just doesn't know any better.

I have made it clear on multiple occasions that the defense funding will get passed either way. That's the important part. If that weren't the case, I would hold my nose and vote for the bill.

As it is, the only part that might not pass is the repeal of DADT, and that isn't so important to me that I'm willing to support a broken system as a means to an end.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 11:34 AM
Its telling that Frankie is the only other poster on your side here, but he just doesn't know any better.

Fallacy. Next.

I have made it clear on multiple occasions that the defense funding will get passed either way. That's the important part. If that weren't the case, I would hold my nose and vote for the bill.

As it is, the only part that might not pass is the repeal of DADT, and that isn't so important to me that I'm willing to support a broken system as a means to an end.

This is just hilarious.

You would not vote for any piece of legislation ever if you were a Senator, following this convenient little standard you've decided to invent for yourself. Period.

Which is illustrative of just how dishonest you're being.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 11:39 AM
Who cares what you or anyone in your version of the gay community thinks? IMO, you and your version of the gay community put way too much importance on this issue. It's not that important. It can wait. We've got much bigger fish to fry for all Americans including an ongoing war and a serious economic malaise. The fact that Saul and I don't want to sacrifice all else to let gays out of the military closet doesn't mean that he and I aren't among the best political friends a gay American could have.

Ha! How did I miss this little nugget of awesomeness.

What exactly would we be sacrificing, again? "All else"? LMAO

Frankie
09-25-2010, 11:50 AM
Its telling that Frankie is the only other poster on your side here, but he just doesn't know any better.

Direckshun you are in good company. So am I. The rest of the open-minded posters are just tired of arguing with ideologues whose sorces of "information" are Glen Beck and Fox "news."

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 11:55 AM
Direckshun you are in good company. So am I. The rest of the open-minded posters are just tired of arguing with ideologues whose sorces of "information" are Glen Beck and Fox "news."

I'll be straight with you, I genuinely don't give a shit who's on my side.

I'm pretty much going to espouse my views no matter who agrees/disagrees. That's my game.

patteeu
09-25-2010, 11:56 AM
This is just hilarious.

You would not vote for any piece of legislation ever if you were a Senator, following this convenient little standard you've decided to invent for yourself. Period.

Which is illustrative of just how dishonest you're being.

You must be too busy laughing to think straight. It's clearly implied when he says this particular issue isn't important enough to him to sacrifice this principle that other issues more dear to his heart may be enough to do so.

patteeu
09-25-2010, 11:58 AM
Ha! How did I miss this little nugget of awesomeness.

What exactly would we be sacrificing, again? "All else"? LMAO

Letting Harry Reid continue to run roughshod on the Senate sacrifices our opportunity to address the important issues that I mentioned. Surely it's not a surprise to you that I think the democrats are unfit to deal with our economic malaise and our ongoing war against radical islam.

patteeu
09-25-2010, 11:59 AM
Direckshun you are in good company. So am I. The rest of the open-minded posters are just tired of arguing with ideologues whose sorces of "information" are Glen Beck and Fox "news."

Two little nutcases, sitting in a tree...

Edit: That's not really fair to Direckshun. He's not a nutcase, he's just warped. I'd guess it was probably something in his childhood.

mlyonsd
09-25-2010, 12:10 PM
Direckshun you are in good company. So am I. The rest of the open-minded posters are just tired of arguing with ideologues whose sorces of "information" are Glen Beck and Fox "news."So where do you stand on the premise of the thread? Are the republicans more to blame than democrats for DADT not passing?

Calcountry
09-25-2010, 02:46 PM
McCain's filibuster held in the Senate.

I don't see the thread anywhere.

57 of the 59 Dems voted for it, all Republicans against.

Why?

Isn't this a program that strengthens our military and engages homosexual equality?Why, because we wanted to personally piss YOU off, of course. ;)

Saul Good
09-25-2010, 03:26 PM
Fallacy. Next.



This is just hilarious.

You would not vote for any piece of legislation ever if you were a Senator, following this convenient little standard you've decided to invent for yourself. Period.

Which is illustrative of just how dishonest you're being.
You aren't just swinging and missing. You are in the wrong stadium and swinging a clock.

As I just said, there are certain causes and situations that are so important that I would suck it up and vote even though I disagree with the way the process was put together. Letting Liberace go Rambo isn't that important.

Saul Good
09-25-2010, 03:34 PM
Let's use a little analogy in order to cut through the density.

If my 3 year old son says, "pass me the ketchup", I might ignore him until he says "please". There is ample opportunity to ask again the right way, and life will go on even if he never gets ketchup.

If he says, "help me. I fell in the pool", I am going to help him, manners be damned.
Not repealing DADT is going without ketchup.

Saul Good
09-25-2010, 03:58 PM
Let's use a little analogy in order to cut through the density.

If my 3 year old son says, "pass me the ketchup", I might ignore him until he says "please". There is ample opportunity to ask again the right way, and life will go on even if he never gets ketchup.

If he says, "help me. I fell in the pool", I am going to help him, manners be damned.
Not repealing DADT is going without ketchup.

Frankie
09-25-2010, 04:26 PM
Wow Saul, you loved your post so much you posted it twice. ;)

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:04 PM
You must be too busy laughing to think straight. It's clearly implied when he says this particular issue isn't important enough to him to sacrifice this principle that other issues more dear to his heart may be enough to do so.

It's not, really. I've been waiting a day and a half for him to make that argument, but it hasn't come out, yet.

So far, it's been this utopian masturbation about how we must continue keeping gays in the closet in order to fight earmarks.

If there's a person in the room still awake after reading that sentence, I'd be surprised.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:05 PM
Two little nutcases, sitting in a tree...

Edit: That's not really fair to Direckshun. He's not a nutcase, he's just warped. I'd guess it was probably something in his childhood.

I was beat with a burning Koran for the first twelve years of my life.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:07 PM
So where do you stand on the premise of the thread? Are the republicans more to blame than democrats for DADT not passing?

Yeah.

Democrats cast 57 votes to help repeal DADT.

Republicans cast 0.

Then cried that Democrats used a legislative manuver that they've used for years.

So, yes. Republicans are more to blame.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:08 PM
Why, because we wanted to personally piss YOU off, of course. ;)

Would not surprise me in the least.

Pete, blaise, and Saul are compiling a track record on this forum of pretzeling themselves into goofy positions in order to come off as disagreeing with me when they actually agree.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:14 PM
As I just said, there are certain causes and situations that are so important that I would suck it up and vote even though I disagree with the way the process was put together. Letting Liberace go Rambo isn't that important.

And it comes out. Finally.

You've tried arguing that Democrats screwed the pooch in failing to get 60 votes. When I countered that they'd need 1 Republican vote for you to use that complaint, you shift.

You start arguing then that the legislative manuvering Democrats employed poisoned the well, and you support the filibuster in the name of legislative purity. When I pointed out that this is something Republicans have done before on issues you've no doubt supported, you shift.

Now you're arguing that legislative purity is not necessary, it's only necessary on shit you think is important enough. And repealing DADT isn't important enough. (But you're pro-gay, you swear on it!)

No telling what you'll shift to next. You're literally running out of straws, bro.

So let's turn to the new argument you've decided to embrace:

Why isn't repealing DADT important enough for you? Is it not an odious policy that affects thousands of our troops?

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:19 PM
If my 3 year old son says, "pass me the ketchup", I might ignore him until he says "please". There is ample opportunity to ask again the right way, and life will go on even if he never gets ketchup.

If he says, "help me. I fell in the pool", I am going to help him, manners be damned.
Not repealing DADT is going without ketchup.

Actually, not repealing DADT is permitting a policy that keeps thousands of troops, who fight and spare their lives for our fucking safety, in the closet and frequently dismissed (dishonorably) from the military for being who they are. It weakens our military and is a pure form of discrimination.

But other than that, the ketchup analogy is dead on.

mlyonsd
09-25-2010, 07:20 PM
Yeah.

Democrats cast 57 votes to help repeal DADT.

Republicans cast 0.

Then cried that Democrats used a legislative manuver that they've used for years.

So, yes. Republicans are more to blame.

Sorry, Reid didn't play all his cards. So yeah, you're wrong.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 07:25 PM
Sorry, Reid didn't play all his cards. So yeah, you're wrong.

Well shit. I didn't know we could skip any logical progression of propositions, simply state our conclusions and be right about it.

Let me try: you get off on smearing peanut butter on your taint.

**** me, this is easy. I'm upset no one explained this to me earlier.

Let me guess, philosophy major? That's some brutal shit, man. You've been holding out on me.

mlyonsd
09-25-2010, 07:30 PM
Well shit. I didn't know we could skip any logical progression of propositions, simply state our conclusions and be right about it. Heh, you did that when you started the thread.

Your mock disgust/shock with the republicans is entertaining. Don't stop, I'm helping you keep the thread alive.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 08:50 PM
Heh, you did that when you started the thread.

Swing and a miss.

blaise
09-25-2010, 10:27 PM
Would not surprise me in the least.

Pete, blaise, and Saul are compiling a track record on this forum of pretzeling themselves into goofy positions in order to come off as disagreeing with me when they actually agree.

The hell I am. You paraphrasing other people's words to fit your own agenda and then asking other people to sign off on your paraphrasing doesn't mean you're proving any point.
Strangely you think whining in various threads and screaming about it makes your point more solid.

blaise
09-25-2010, 10:33 PM
It's interesting though. Maybe a year or so ago I considered Direckshun one of the liberals here that one could have a reasonable discussion with. But over the last few months he's evaolved into a sort of whiny, smarmy, very "orange-like" kind of petulant crybaby. I don't know if it's because Obama's numbers have fallen or what, but he's basically become one of the worst type of message board guy. With all the emoticons and paraphrasing, name calling, etc. Basically I'm saying I thought he was ok, but he's gone full douche it seems.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 10:37 PM
The hell I am. You paraphrasing other people's words to fit your own agenda and then asking other people to sign off on your paraphrasing doesn't mean you're proving any point.
Strangely you think whining in various threads and screaming about it makes your point more solid.

It doesn't make any difference on the solidity of my point.

I just like pointing it out, because it's a silly way for a rational person to behave. Much less several rational people.

blaise
09-25-2010, 10:43 PM
It doesn't make any difference on the solidity of my point.

I just like pointing it out, because it's a silly way for a rational person to behave. Much less several rational people.

In other words, you enjoy acting like a pedantic ass.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 10:45 PM
It's interesting though. Maybe a year or so ago I considered Direckshun one of the liberals here that one could have a reasonable discussion with. But over the last few months he's evaolved into a sort of whiny, smarmy, very "orange-like" kind of petulant crybaby. I don't know if it's because Obama's numbers have fallen or what, but he's basically become one of the worst type of message board guy. With all the emoticons and paraphrasing, name calling, etc. Basically I'm saying I thought he was ok, but he's gone full douche it seems.

I really, honestly, seriously, sincerely doubt that you ever thought anything remotely positive about me, ever. Whatever downgrade of your opinion about me is imaginary, and a lie. I genuinely don't buy it because if you ever did have an inkling of respect for me, I never remember receiving it.

The way I conduct myself on this forum, in all my piss and vinegar, is really no different than a ton of the conservatives do. And you guys are totally fine with each other spewing vitriol at liberals.

But liberals do it back... Batton the hatches, we got a crazy librul on the loose.

Whatever. At the end of the day, I crave and enjoy reasonable political exchanges of actual ideas. When people try to bog it down in logical fallacies, nonsequitors, and their bullshit neuroses (like refusing to agree with someone on even the smallest subject matter), it triggers a pet peeve of mine.

I don't give a shit about how folks treat me on this forum, because I know it's a hivemind, impress-your-allies atmosphere around here. You'd do better to take my lead and get some thicker skin.

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 10:46 PM
In other words, you enjoy acting like a pedantic ass.

Again, I think you could reasonably accuse a majority of people on this forum of acting like that.

You just care about it with me because I'm one of those darned libruls.

blaise
09-25-2010, 10:56 PM
I really, honestly, seriously, sincerely doubt that you ever thought anything remotely positive about me, ever. Whatever downgrade of your opinion about me is imaginary, and a lie. I genuinely don't buy it because if you ever did have an inkling of respect for me, I never remember receiving it.

The way I conduct myself on this forum, in all my piss and vinegar, is really no different than a ton of the conservatives do. And you guys are totally fine with each other spewing vitriol at liberals.

But liberals do it back... Batton the hatches, we got a crazy librul on the loose.

Whatever. At the end of the day, I crave and enjoy reasonable political exchanges of actual ideas. When people try to bog it down in logical fallacies, nonsequitors, and their bullshit neuroses (like refusing to agree with someone on even the smallest subject matter), it triggers a pet peeve of mine.

I don't give a shit about how folks treat me on this forum, because I know it's a hivemind, impress-your-allies atmosphere around here. You'd do better to take my lead and get some thicker skin.

Oh, don't mistake my comments as if I'm offended. It's not a thicker skin that I need. Rather, it's that you've become trite.
And what I said was true, so if it makes you feel better to call it a lie, go right ahead, but it's not the case. I once thought you had a sort of original point of view, but you've devolved into nothing more that the most cliche type of partisan message-board hackery. And if it makes you feel any better to say the other side does it too, and that it's the nature of the message board to assume the act you have. Well, um....ok? Congrats? Strange though that you're seeming to revel in homogeny.
Best of luck though, sport!

brorth
09-25-2010, 11:02 PM
.

Chiefshrink
09-25-2010, 11:03 PM
It's called reading the "Political Tea Leaves" that spell "Tea Party Movement".

Direckshun
09-25-2010, 11:10 PM
Oh, don't mistake my comments as if I'm offended. It's not a thicker skin that I need. Rather, it's that you've become trite.
And what I said was true, so if it makes you feel better to call it a lie, go right ahead, but it's not the case. I once thought you had a sort of original point of view, but you've devolved into nothing more that the most cliche type of partisan message-board hackery. And if it makes you feel any better to say the other side does it too, and that it's the nature of the message board to assume the act you have. Well, um....ok? Congrats? Strange though that you're seeming to revel in homogeny.
Best of luck though, sport!

I don't really understand much of anything you just typed. But okay.

Basically, I'm just saying the bullshit after-the-fact compliments are just that, bullshit. This is a conservative-heavy board (I live in the Ozarks so that's no big deal), but as a result about two out of every three threads I participate in turn into a pile on. I don't really ever recall a conservative who """"respects"""" me jumping in and saying something like "hey, he's a decent dude with a good head on his shoulders, he just disagrees." (Oddly enough, the one example I can think of who actually has done that is Saul. I think I may have repped him for that?)

I don't need people's after-the-fact admissions of respect used as some sort of weapon to say I've devolved. The simple fact is that I'm a darned librul, and the way this dumb hive works is that I am to be expelled. And you can see that in the behaviors of a dozen conservative posters on DC, who do so with zero reprieve from folks like yourself who claim my character is such a big deal.

patteeu
09-26-2010, 02:21 AM
Well shit. I didn't know we could skip any logical progression of propositions, simply state our conclusions and be right about it.

Let me try: you get off on smearing peanut butter on your taint.

**** me, this is easy. I'm upset no one explained this to me earlier.

Let me guess, philosophy major? That's some brutal shit, man. You've been holding out on me.

Isn't that pretty much what you've been doing for this entire thread?

patteeu
09-26-2010, 02:28 AM
I don't really understand much of anything you just typed. But okay.

Basically, I'm just saying the bullshit after-the-fact compliments are just that, bullshit. This is a conservative-heavy board (I live in the Ozarks so that's no big deal), but as a result about two out of every three threads I participate in turn into a pile on. I don't really ever recall a conservative who """"respects"""" me jumping in and saying something like "hey, he's a decent dude with a good head on his shoulders, he just disagrees." (Oddly enough, the one example I can think of who actually has done that is Saul. I think I may have repped him for that?)

I don't need people's after-the-fact admissions of respect used as some sort of weapon to say I've devolved. The simple fact is that I'm a darned librul, and the way this dumb hive works is that I am to be expelled. And you can see that in the behaviors of a dozen conservative posters on DC, who do so with zero reprieve from folks like yourself who claim my character is such a big deal.

Hey, didn't you see earlier in the thread where I corrected myself and said that you weren't a full blown nutcase like Frankie? I think you make some decent arguments from time to time, but let's face it, you don't have much ammunition to work with since you're wrong about so many things.

mlyonsd
09-26-2010, 06:50 AM
Isn't that pretty much what you've been doing for this entire thread?

Pretty much. But like I said he's entertaining.