Party of NO (R) Hates the Troops

[sarge]

You know how I know you are new to politics?

You are mistaken. I am experienced at discussing 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.

Bills are are seldom singular in purpose. It is disengenuous to posit that the Republicans fillibustered against giving "the troops" a pay raise. It is actually a partisan drive by.

"R"s (the individuals) no more hate homsexuals than do "D"s, nor do "R"s hate persons of color.

 

[sarge]

Well it is not abnormal . All other threads may be subject to deletion or at the least new titles.

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is common practice on this forum to post distorted, sensationalized thread titles - and that failuire to do so might result in a threads deletion?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Can you provide a link?

Is your Google broke?

...to steal a phrase...

(It's called the DREAM Act, FYI...)

 

[XBoxWarrior]

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is common practice on this forum to post distorted, sensationalized thread titles - and that failuire to do so might result in a threads deletion?

Would you kindly take the time to look through the political thread titles? I'm sure you'll find a few that are somewhat partisan in nature


If you would like to discuss forum policy, I believe there is a place to do just that.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

(It's called the DREAM Act, FYI...)

Really? I kinda like that name! Not as patriotic as the "Patriot Act", yet it does capture the idea that maybe one day we can have equality in the military...one can Dream.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

"R"s (the individuals) no more hate homsexuals than do "D"s

That's why the R's run on a platform of marriage discrimination? Surely they don't believe that teh gheys would perform less competently in the military, because I believe there are many who are doing just that. Or is it that teh ghey can rub off on a "straight" soldier? I'm not sure.

nor do "R"s hate persons of color.

Hmmnnnn...this one is up for debate. Have you noticed this little thing called the Tea Party? It's almost as if they have signs and stuff that might lead one to believe that they do. They damn sure don't want 30 million new brown citizens voting in an election for some reason.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Really? I kinda like that name! Not as patriotic as the "Patriot Act", yet it does capture the idea that maybe one day we can have equality in the military...one can Dream.

It has nothing to do with the military, save for the clause that an illegal alien who fits the criteria may serve at least two years in the military and be rewarded with citizenship.

It was an amnesty bill, plain and simple. I suspect that amendment was the reason so many were ready to prevent its passage, much more than the DADT provision.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

They damn sure don't want 30 million new brown citizens voting in an election for some reason.

I can't speak for everyone, but I sure don't want 30 million people (using your from-the-nethers number) rewarded for unlawful behavior.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

I can't speak for everyone, but I sure don't want 30 million people (using your from-the-nethers number) rewarded for unlawful behavior.

They wont be illegal if they get amnesty now will they...I recall a certain actor turned president who was pro-amnesty. Surely the R's wouldn't think their patron saint was wrong, would they?

What was his name?

 

[sarge]

That's why the R's run on a platform of marriage discrimination? Surely they don't believe that teh gheys would perform less competently in the military, because I believe there are many who are doing just that. Or is it that teh ghey can rub off on a "straight" soldier? I'm not sure.

Okay - try this. Put together a coherent statement that supported (or even supportable) by demonstrated actions on the part of Republicans. Then, I'll engage you. All you've acomplished with the above is to ascribe to Republicans a series of positions that you have failed to demonstrate that they actually hold.

As it is, you've actually said nothing, but used a lot of words to do it.

Hmmnnnn...this one is up for debate. Have you noticed this little thing called the Tea Party? It's almost as if they have signs and stuff that might lead one to believe that they do. They damn sure don't want 30 million new brown citizens voting in an election for some reason.

I have "noticed" the Tea Party. What I have not noticed is any indication that they are a subordinate branch of the Republican party or that they "don't like brown people".

 

[leftysergeant]

The long and short of it is that they do not care as much about giving the soldiers a pay raise as they do about ensuring that Obama fails.

Disgusting.

And what was with that retired general who tewstified befoe committee that the Srebrinica massacre happened because of queer Dutch soldiers?

I do not consider these people capable of fully rational thought.

 

[eeyore1954]

The long and short of it is that they do not care as much about giving the soldiers a pay raise as they do about ensuring that Obama fails.

Disgusting.

And what was with that retired general who tewstified befoe committee that the Srebrinica massacre happened because of queer Dutch soldiers?

I do not consider these people capable of fully rational thought.

The long and the short of it could also be that the party who sponsered the bill could have put the don't ask dont tell in a different bill if they were more concerned about giving the soldiers a raise than making political points.
They knew it wouldn't pass as written.

 

[eeyore1954]

I don't understand. Are you saying that it is common practice on this forum to post distorted, sensationalized thread titles - and that failuire to do so might result in a threads deletion?

The last part was sarcasm

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Huh. You know that amnesty bill?

it only works if you join the military.

And you know, if you want to defend the country under arms I can't exactly see why you should be denied citizenship.

... unless of course, you intentionally mislead everyone. Seems the case.

 

[Drysdale]

Huh. You know that amnesty bill?

it only works if you join the military.

And you know, if you want to defend the country under arms I can't exactly see why you should be denied citizenship.

... unless of course, you intentionally mislead everyone. Seems the case.

Sure about that?

 

[Augustine]

Huh. You know that amnesty bill?

it only works if you join the military.

And you know, if you want to defend the country under arms I can't exactly see why you should be denied citizenship.

... unless of course, you intentionally mislead everyone. Seems the case.

I believe reading Section 5 of the bill will remove this misperception from your mind.

Perhaps more specifically, Section 5 (d)(1)(D).

 

[leftysergeant]

The long and the short of it could also be that the party who sponsered the bill could have put the don't ask dont tell in a different bill if they were more concerned about giving the soldiers a raise than making political points.
They knew it wouldn't pass as written.

And a stand-alone bill, related to the defense bill but not in it is going to pass against the shrieking of the right wingnuts?

It is more related to defense policies than is the woerdness that I heard one Republican moron wanted to insert about no Miranda for terroism suspects.

 

[Unabogie]

"R"s (the individuals) no more hate homsexuals than do "D"s, nor do "R"s hate persons of color.

Saxby Chambliss on line 2. He wants to know if you heard thar his staffer said that "all faggots must die". But in totally non hateful way, of course!

 

[Beth]

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



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.

Thanks. That was informative. I agree with you about this going too far.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Thanks. That was informative. I agree with you about this going too far.

I don't understand your complaint. The Senate Majority Leader can require a full filibuster any time he wants. It's right there in the rules.

As far as I can tell, there is no such thing as a "non-filibuster filibuster", and never has been. The rules are quite clear: There is only the filibuster.

Maybe one of these days, there will come some issue so divisive, and yet so important, that the faction threatening a filibuster will be required to make good, but it looks like the Senate has far less taste for that kind of extreme spectacle than some voters. Good on them, I say.