• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Party of NO (R) Hates the Troops

XBoxWarrior

Banned
X
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
1,228
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort by Democrats and the White House to lift the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, voting unanimously against advancing a major defense policy bill that included the provision.
~snip~
Democrats included the repeal provision in a $726 billion defense policy bill, which authorizes a pay raise for the troops among other popular programs. In a deal brokered with the White House, the measure would have overturned the 1993 law banning openly gay service only after a Pentagon review and certification from the president that lifting the ban wouldn't hurt troop morale.
Click to expand...

All because they hate tey gheys wearing fabulous uniforms...:rolleyes:

I'm back! :D

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grHLcTA5VMaxM1KPtvrf3OTOfZuQD9ICK7K00
 
I don't understand how come the democrats are letting the republicans get away with this. If they want to filibuster it, make 'em actually do it.
 
Personally. I think the Reid wanted them to kill the bill. It could make good political hay, if the Dems will use it.
 
Then again, there were moderate republicans who were willing to allow it to go through provided Reid made some concessions. In particular, Reid was insisting that no one be allowed to add any amendments to it, sans three or so that directly addressed the bill. The moderate republicans wanted to be able to add their own pork to it, and Reid wouldn't let them (or anyone), so they balked.
 
"Among other popular programs."

Such as? Data would be nice.
 
pgwenthold said:
Then again, there were moderate republicans who were willing to allow it to go through provided Reid made some concessions. In particular, Reid was insisting that no one be allowed to add any amendments to it, sans three or so that directly addressed the bill. The moderate republicans wanted to be able to add their own pork to it, and Reid wouldn't let them (or anyone), so they balked.
Click to expand...
This is repeated for emphasis.

Politics as usual. :p
 
theprestige said:
Is that what you're trying to do? Make political hay?
Click to expand...

Personally, no. That's not my job.

You know, how the Republicans always trot out the old canard, "The Democrat Party is raising your taxes". Sure, it's not true for 98% of Americans
but it gets votes from the rubes.
 
I didn't know there were 43 Republicans in the Senate.

Who are the traitorous Dems?

and wouldn't a repeal of DADT simply return the status to the previous way of doing things? Meaning they will ask and will refuse you entry.
 
The OP is also forgetting the amnesty program attached to the bill. That may have had something to do with it, possibly more than the DADT aspect did.
 
XBoxWarrior said:
Personally. I think the Reid wanted them to kill the bill. It could make good political hay, if the Dems will use it.
Click to expand...

Then they're not controlling the headlines I see: Democrats so incompetent they can't even pass...

I heard the vote went down 53-46, failing to secure 60.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
The OP is also forgetting the amnesty program attached to the bill. That may have had something to do with it, possibly more than the DADT aspect did.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link?

I missed that part about letting the brown people vote. :o
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Adams said:
The OP is also forgetting the amnesty program attached to the bill. That may have had something to do with it, possibly more than the DADT aspect did.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but McCain vowed to lead a vote against the bill solely on the DADT aspect.
 
Beth said:
I don't understand how come the democrats are letting the republicans get away with this. If they want to filibuster it, make 'em actually do it.
Click to expand...

I've been confused by this as well. Wikipedia says this:

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. In the past, when one senator became exhausted, another would need to take over to continue the filibuster. Ultimately, the filibuster could be exhausted by a majority who would even sleep in cots outside the Senate Chamber to exhaust the filibusterers. Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate. Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest, arguing that the ease with which a nominal "filibuster" can be staged (compared to the real suspension of business) has led to a progressively wider use of it and has contributed to perceived "gridlock".
Click to expand...

I never considered myself a "modern Senate critic," but I would agree with this. If a filibuster works because there is no limit to the debate that can be had on a bill, then it should only be effective while the bill is still being "debated." And I don't mind sham debates like reading out the dictionary, but this kind of non-filibuster filibuster goes too far for me.
 
Randi Rhodes was saying on her radio show that Lindsey Graham wanted to stick a poison pill on it, something about suspending Miranda for anyone arrested on suspicion of terrorism.:eek:

Obama would have just had to veto it anyway, with that idiotic change.
 
sarge said:
Welocme back.

I'm new to this forum. Is it normal and accepted to so grossly exagerate a thread title that it is no longer accurate?
Click to expand...

Well it is not abnormal . All other threads may be subject to deletion or at the least new titles.
 
sarge said:
I'm new to this forum. Is it normal and accepted to so grossly exagerate a thread title that it is no longer accurate?
Click to expand...

You know how I know you are new to politics?

Come on, the R's filibustered a bill that was going to give the troops a pay raise, even teh ghey ones. It's common knowledge the R's hate teh gheys, and the brown people, but this bill was for funding the troops...all of them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom