Party of NO (R) Hates the Troops

[sarge]

I surely do not want to be the Repulican who has to go home and tell people that the reason there is no Pentagon budget is that he didn't want gays to serve.

Presumably, you also would not want to be the Democrat that goes home and reports that he intentionally inserted a non-starter of a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget into the bill, thereby holding the military hostage to a wedge issue.

Gays should be allowed to serve openly. Gays should enjoy the full protections of the Constitution - and all actions by goverment that deny this are contrary to the 14th amendment. That being said, this particular impasse is the sole responsibilty of the Democrats.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Presumably, you also would not want to be the Democrat that goes home and reports that he intentionally inserted a non-starter of a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with the budget into the bill, thereby holding the military hostage to a wedge issue.

It's a provision that has everything to do with the budget. Especially the part of the budget that pays for teh ghey soldiers to get a freakin' pay raise. Hell, the Democrats were even goin to give a raise to the straight soldiers.

It's time the Party of NO (R) get in line with 80% of Americans and let teh gheys continue to serve their country. In a fabulous uniform.

 

[rwguinn]

It's a provision that has everything to do with the budget. Especially the part of the budget that pays for teh ghey soldiers to get a freakin' pay raise. Hell, the Democrats were even goin to give a raise to the straight soldiers.

It's time the Party of NO (R) get in line with 80% of Americans and let teh gheys continue to serve their country. In a fabulous uniform.

Granting Amnesty to a group of illegal aliens is an integral part of paying soldiers? The two are tied like quantum entanglement?
Damn. And here I thought they had been getting a paycheck all along, but I guess we'll have to take all of it back, huh?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Granting Amnesty to a group of illegal aliens is an integral part of paying soldiers? The two are tied like quantum entanglement?
Damn. And here I thought they had been getting a paycheck all along, but I guess we'll have to take all of it back, huh?

Re-read that "amnesty" part. It doesn't give all the brown people citizenship.

 

[eeyore1954]

Re-read that "amnesty" part. It doesn't give all the brown people citizenship.

Re read what he said. Where is there a mention of giving all the "brown" people citizenship.

 

[sarge]

It's a provision that has everything to do with the budget.

Of course it does not. Read the bill, and then evaluate the content and the effect of passage without applying a political filter. It is evident that the bill contains provisions that are unrelated to the defense budget, and it is evident that these provisions would face significant opposition as stand-alone initiatives. These are facts, and the inescapable conclusion is that the Democrats gambled that the Republicans would not have the stomach to risk blocking the Defense budget just to eliminate the "open service" provision. The Democrats gambled poorly, it seems.

Especially the part of the budget that pays for teh ghey soldiers to get a freakin' pay raise. Hell, the Democrats were even goin to give a raise to the straight soldiers.

If the Democrats had simply written a Defense Appropriations bill, the bill would have passed easily. As the Democrats inserted contentious provisions, the responsibility for the failure rests with the authors.

It's time the Party of NO (R) get in line with 80% of Americans and let teh gheys continue to serve their country. In a fabulous uniform.

The Republican party should represent its constituents, so long as the wishes of the constituents do not violate the constitution. If 80% of Americans support allowing Gays to serve openly, then indeed the Republicans are disconected from their constituents. Of course, your 80% is an invention.

Most of the remaining prohibitions against gays seem to run afoul of the 14th amendment. At least, that's my opinion until the courts more directly address the issue. The courts have long held that the military is different from the rest of society, and that military efficiency is more important than using the military as a platform for testing social engineering theories.

In my personal fairly well informed opinion, gays serving openly would have no more detrimental effect on military efficiency than did the racial integration of the 50s.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Re read what he said. Where is there a mention of giving all the "brown" people citizenship.

Yeah, your right...he said, "illegal aliens".

We all know, Illegal Aliens=Mexicans=Brown People

If only the Party of NO (R) wasn't so bigoted, perhaps they wouldn't be so afraid of the brown folk.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

If 80% of Americans support allowing Gays to serve openly, then indeed the Republicans are disconected from their constituents. Of course, your 80% is an invention.

Ok, 75%...and the number of bigots is dying off faster than a Hoveround at a TeaBagging rally.

75% back letting gays serve openly



Three-quarters of Americans say that they support openly gay people serving in the U.S. military, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, a finding that could lend momentum to the Obama administration's effort to dismantle the policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021104873.html

 

[rwguinn]

Yeah, your right...he said, "illegal aliens".

We all know, Illegal Aliens=Mexicans=Brown People

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=100&pictureid=3771

If only the Party of NO (R) wasn't so bigoted, perhaps they wouldn't be so afraid of the brown folk.

Anybody see a set of goalposts?
They were RIGHT HERE just a few hours ago.
Maybe they got hidden under all the strawmen?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Anybody see a set of goalposts?
They were RIGHT HERE just a few hours ago.
Maybe they got hidden under all the strawmen?

You wanna explain again why the Party of NO (R) didn't want to pass this bill...was it teh gheys, or the brown people?

 

[sarge]

You wanna explain again why the Party of NO (R) didn't want to pass this bill...was it teh gheys, or the brown people?

You ask the wrong questiona. The correct questions are:

Why are the Democrats playing politics with the Defense budget? Do they really care so little about our troops that they would hold their pay hostage in this manner?

These questions are as intentionally hyperbolic as your originals, but they do stick closer to the actual chain of events.

 

[rwguinn]

It's a provision that has everything to do with the budget. Especially the part of the budget that pays for teh ghey soldiers to get a freakin' pay raise. Hell, the Democrats were even goin to give a raise to the straight soldiers.

It's time the Party of NO (R) get in line with 80% of Americans and let teh gheys continue to serve their country. In a fabulous uniform.

You stated that the amnesty was " a provision that has everything to do with the budget. Especially the part of the budget that pays for teh ghey soldiers to get a freakin' pay raise. Hell, the Democrats were even goin to give a raise to the straight soldiers."
AND i ASKED:

Granting Amnesty to a group of illegal aliens is an integral part of paying soldiers? The two are tied like quantum entanglement?
Damn. And here I thought they had been getting a paycheck all along, but I guess we'll have to take all of it back, huh?

You responded about brown people, and were told:

Re read what he said. Where is there a mention of giving all the "brown" people citizenship.

And to make the straw complete, you came back with this

You wanna explain again why the Party of NO (R) didn't want to pass this bill...was it teh gheys, or the brown people?

All explaining how the military budget depends on brown people getting amnesty?
I cry ********.
You want to explain the connection? Please?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

Why are the Democrats playing politics with the Defense budget?

That one is pretty damn obvious...duh, they are politicians. This is what they do for a living. The Democrats would like to repeal DODT, and they don't hate on the brown people, so they added their amendments into the bill, remember they have what is called a "majority", they can do these things.

That voting against said bill makes the Party of NO (R) look like the bigots they are, is not the fault of the Democrats. That lies solely at the feet of the bigots.

Do they really care so little about our troops that they would hold their pay hostage in this manner?

Did you miss the part about giving the troops a pay raise?

These questions are as intentionally hyperbolic as your originals, but they do stick closer to the actual chain of events.

The chain of events are pretty simple; the Party of NO (R) wont let teh gheys serve in the military, or let the brown people become citizens by serving in the military, because they will not garner the votes of their crazy stepchild, the TeaBaggers.

 

[sarge]

That one is pretty damn obvious...duh, they are politicians. This is what they do for a living. The Democrats would like to repeal DODT, and they don't hate on the brown people, so they added their amendments into the bill, remember they have what is called a "majority", they can do these things.

That voting against said bill makes the Party of NO (R) look like the bigots they are, is not the fault of the Democrats. That lies solely at the feet of the bigots.



Did you miss the part about giving the troops a pay raise?



The chain of events are pretty simple; the Party of NO (R) wont let teh gheys serve in the military, or let the brown people become citizens by serving in the military, because they will not garner the votes of their crazy stepchild, the TeaBaggers.

Perhaps condescension in the absence of either fact or reasonable analysis is the norm on this forum. I don't have the experience here to know. I do know that you are linking unrelated factoids and drawing unsupported conclusions, and it appears that you do so out of blind partisanship. That's fine, of course - but I'm not really interested in "argument' as a substitute for reasonable debate.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

You know, you may be right. Maybe the Party of NO (R) doesn't really mind if teh gheys can wear the fabulous uniforms, and if a few more brown people get to vote.

Perhaps the real reason the don't want to repeal DODT is because then the only place left for closeted gays to hide would be in the Republican party?

 

[sarge]

You know, you may be right. Maybe the Party of NO (R) doesn't really mind if teh gheys can wear the fabulous uniforms, and if a few more brown people get to vote.

Perhaps the real reason the don't want to repeal DODT is because then the only place left for closeted gays to hide would be in the Republican party?

Perhaps condescension in the absence of either fact or reasonable analysis is the norm on this forum. I don't have the experience here to know. I do know that you are linking unrelated factoids and drawing unsupported conclusions, and it appears that you do so out of blind partisanship. That's fine, of course - but I'm not really interested in "argument' as a substitute for reasonable debate.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

I don't have the experience here to know.

Oh come on now...what's your other posting handle? You have only 30 posts, and yet 10 of them are in this thread? lol

Shirley, you can spend a few minutes and read a few political threads before trying to support the Party of NO (R), and their hate on teh ghey soldiers.

Playing ignorant of politics, in the political forum is weak, yet you keep harping on that point.

 

[sarge]

Oh come on now...what's your other posting handle? You have only 30 posts, and yet 10 of them are in this thread? lol

If I read that correctly, you are accusing me of having another ID on this forum. You are incorrect. I have never had any other ID besides this one - and in fact this screen name is exactly the one I use on several other forums. If you insist, I'll provide you those forums and you can do a search there, determine that the content of my posts and my posting style are identical to my style and content here. I insist only that after you do so you do the honorable thing and report here just how wrong you are. Deal?

Shirley, you can spend a few minutes and read a few political threads before trying to support the Party of NO (R), and their hate on teh ghey soldiers.

I have provided support for my position, and it requires no reading of other threads on this forum. Supporting ones position requires knowledge of the subject at hand, a grasp of logic, and an ability to communicate in written form. I have employed exactly those skills.

You have provided sarcasm and cute emoticons. The burden rests with you, and so far you have failed to meet that burden.

Playing ignorant of politics, in the political forum is weak, yet you keep harping on that point.

Actually, I have declared that I am politically astute, right here in this forum. That is just about the opposite of "playing ignorant of politics".

I have declared that I am new to this forum, and I've asked if the hyperbole contained in the thread title to this forum is the norm here. If it will ease your confusion, I'll gladly break it down a bit:

I am a member of several online forums. Some of them have areas for political discussions. I have participated in political discussions on forums for several years.

I am new to this forum. I have no other ID here, nor have I ever had one.


You would do well to study the form of LeftySergeant(sp?). He and I disagree on pretty much everything so far in my short period here, yet he manages to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't agree with his conclusions, but he takes the time to gather facts before he presents an argument. As a consequence, I pay attention when I engage him. It makes my game better.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

You would do well to study the form of LeftySergeant(sp?). He and I disagree on pretty much everything so far in my short period here, yet he manages to disagree without being disagreeable. I don't agree with his conclusions, but he takes the time to gather facts before he presents an argument. As a consequence, I pay attention when I engage him. It makes my game better.

Are you a comedian, or just playing one on the internets?

I know what your game is, and so do you.

All you have done in this thread is tell me that I used hyperbola in a political topic...well, my friend, that's the nature of politics.

The point remains, the Party of NO (R), in my honest opinion, hates on teh gheys, and doesn't like brown people becoming citizens and voting.

 

[sarge]

Are you a comedian, or just playing one on the internets?

Neither. I have an interest in rational discussion.

I know what your game is, and so do you.

Again, you are mistaken.

All you have done in this thread is tell me that I used hyperbola in a political topic...well, my friend, that's the nature of politics.

Of course that is not all I've accomplished in this thread - and we are not engaged in politics. We are engaged in discussion, and your form of "discussion" is not credible.

That's fine. You don't seem to be breaking the rules, and it's of no concern to me. Your posts don't stand up to analysis - but that's your business.

The point remains, the Party of NO (R), in my honest opinion, hates on teh gheys, and doesn't like brown people becoming citizens and voting.

You have failed to support your opinion.