my government fears that giving gay rights would destroy their social economy (that is what I think they believe) cause many states are fighting tooth and nail and set up laws against it.Your government makes it look like giving gays rights is rocket science or something, it's impressive.
They still think that (hence the dream act is putting off)People once thought that about minorities.
Yea. I totally agree.Republicans are old homophobes and Democrats are cowardly idiots.
According to a guy I went to school with, "it's not okay for (homosexuals) to run around raping children and stuff." He said that to a teacher in class. I saw some people nod their heads in class.Your government makes it look like giving gays rights is rocket science or something, it's impressive.
According to a guy I went to school with, "it's not okay for (homosexuals) to run around raping children and stuff." He said that to a teacher in class. I saw some people nod their heads in class.Your government makes it look like giving gays rights is rocket science or something, it's impressive.
I'm in a country that thirty years ago was still run by a dictatorship with a strong catholic component, and homosexuals can marry here, etc. You'd be surprised how something like letting them marry changes the views of people with respect to gays by making their situation as normal as possible. So it's no excuse that some people are bigoted, specially when (in my experience), passing this kind of laws actually push bigotry back.Dave said:Republicans are old homophobes and Democrats are cowardly idiots.
To my embarrassment, the lone cowardly idiot was my own Senator Manchin, hereafter to be known as Mojo.Republicans are old homophobes and Democrats are cowardly idiots.
I don't keep track, but has anyone ACTUALLY use the filibuster? (hence the 60 requirement to auto kill any filibuster)What irritates me is that everything has to pass with 60 votes. It is unprecedented to require a super majority in our Senate for everything they vote on.
Yes.I don't keep track, but has anyone ACTUALLY use the filibuster? (hence the 60 requirement to auto kill any filibuster)
Yes.I don't keep track, but has anyone ACTUALLY use the filibuster? (hence the 60 requirement to auto kill any filibuster)
The filibuster is an essential tool against the tyranny of the majority... but they do need to make it so that it can't be handed off to a rotating stable of staffers.They need to get rid of the filibuster. Now.
Tyranny of the minority, as many are so quick to remind us these days, is why women can vote and black people can eat in the same restaurants as white people.Instead, the fillibuster is the tyranny of the minority.
The filibuster is an essential tool against the tyranny of the majority... but they do need to make it so that it can't be handed off to a rotating stable of staffers.[/QUOTE]They need to get rid of the filibuster. Now.
Tyranny of the minority, as many are so quick to remind us these days, is why women can vote and black people can eat in the same restaurants as white people.[/QUOTE]Instead, the fillibuster is the tyranny of the minority.
Tyranny of the minority, as many are so quick to remind us these days, is why women can vote and black people can eat in the same restaurants as white people.[/QUOTE]Instead, the fillibuster is the tyranny of the minority.
I'll jog your memory. When democrats were filibustering Bush's judicial appointees, Republicans put forth the idea to bring to a vote a change to the senate rules such that only a simple (51) majority would be needed to reach cloture and end a filibuster, instead of the 60 supermajority. A change to senate rules also only needs a simple majority. Trent Lott used the threat of this to try to get the filibusters to end, and called it their "Nuclear Option." IE, last resort.Nuclear Option? Is that some retarded Fox News label?
Except for Miguel Estrada, who had NO judicial experience.It was a pretty piece of political maneuvering on both parts, actually.
Yes, and I don't agree with it now. The filibuster needs reform, not destruction.
---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:46 PM ----------
Except for, you know, his doctorate of law, magna cum laude from harvard law school, editing of the harvard law review, clerking in the 2nd district appelate court and the supreme court, his time in the US Attorney's office, and a private law practice. Aside from that, yeah, he had absolutely no experience with law or judicial procedure. And never mind that the American Bar Association gave him a unanimous endorsement of "well qualified."Except for Miguel Estrada, who had NO judicial experience.It was a pretty piece of political maneuvering on both parts, actually.
could she really say otherwise though?Fun Fact: During her confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan said Estrada was perfectly qualified to serve either on the apellate or even the supreme court, and that if she'd had a vote to cast, she would have voted to confirm him.
They can afford to have balls because a lot of them are going home permanently.Don't have a link, but the news just reported that the House voted in favor of repealing DADT. The Vote is going to the Senate. Looks like the Democrats aren't going to let the Republicans ignore this for 4 years when they enter office at the beginning of the year.
Is it just me, or are the Democrats unusually full of piss and vinegar ever since they stood up to Obama on the Tax Cuts?
They can afford to have balls because a lot of them are going home permanently.[/QUOTE]Don't have a link, but the news just reported that the House voted in favor of repealing DADT. The Vote is going to the Senate. Looks like the Democrats aren't going to let the Republicans ignore this for 4 years when they enter office at the beginning of the year.
Is it just me, or are the Democrats unusually full of piss and vinegar ever since they stood up to Obama on the Tax Cuts?
They can afford to have balls because a lot of them are going home permanently.[/QUOTE]Don't have a link, but the news just reported that the House voted in favor of repealing DADT. The Vote is going to the Senate. Looks like the Democrats aren't going to let the Republicans ignore this for 4 years when they enter office at the beginning of the year.
Is it just me, or are the Democrats unusually full of piss and vinegar ever since they stood up to Obama on the Tax Cuts?
They can afford to have balls because a lot of them are going home permanently.[/QUOTE]Don't have a link, but the news just reported that the House voted in favor of repealing DADT. The Vote is going to the Senate. Looks like the Democrats aren't going to let the Republicans ignore this for 4 years when they enter office at the beginning of the year.
Is it just me, or are the Democrats unusually full of piss and vinegar ever since they stood up to Obama on the Tax Cuts?
I remember that, but the staffer would have to change hands as well (goes with the Senator/Rep)I've been a big supporter of term limits, but recently someone on these boards showed me an article that points out that what would likely happen if you had term limits for senators and members of congress is that the staffers would become the permanent fixtures, and THEY would end up tailoring most of the legislation. I'm not sure that's an improvement. Maybe we should have term limits for congressional/senatorial staff as well.
Honestly, that would be far better than the more common tactic, "Let someone summarize the bill for me then vote on it turning a blind eye to the earmarks."The time wasting tactic I hate the most would probably be the "Read the bill in its entirety out loud on the floor".
Technically that's just the Cloture vote. Final vote is scheduled for 3 PM.
Yes, please!I'd like to disallow omnibus bills, personally. One issue, one bill, in my opinion.
Technically that's just the Cloture vote. Final vote is scheduled for 3 PM.
The American Family Association said:The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours. They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.
Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.
A fighting force of Lamars would be an awesome force.Why is it all these "family groups" think that every gay person is Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds?
A fighting force of Lamars would be an awesome force.[/QUOTE]Why is it all these "family groups" think that every gay person is Lamar from Revenge of the Nerds?
Well it is very hard to shoot at people with a dick in the butt.Yes, because I'm sure that on the front lines of a fight, while bullets are whizzing by and explosions are going off all around, that the only thing your fellow soldier who is gay is thinking about is how he's going to get your pants off and rape you in the ass. And then attack your children. And give them the gays.
Warren Arbury has it just right. One further step toward marriage and easy access to other people's children.
Of course they’re celebrating. Join the Army - test positive for AIDS/HIV - draw 100% disability for the rest of your miserable life.
If you don’t believe me check the VA regulations.
They will simply monitor promotions until the gays have an acceptable % of leadership. Once they are in power they will promote more and more of them because they cannot be objective. Their sexual orientation is what they are at their core. They destroy churches now the military. Christians will simply vote with their feet.
Most schizophrenics don’t have a choice about whether they are mentally ill or not either, just like homosexuals who have their particular mental disorder.
Should we allow schizophrenics, psychopaths, or sociopaths in the military as well?
God says homosexuality (male or female) is an abomination... Now toooo many in this nation disregard at their and our nation's peril the consequences in 'we the people' blessing something that the Creator calls an abomination....
NOW to be clear I could care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors....their doors... NOT public doors and the military is public tax payer funded, and government is 'we the people'.
Jim Robinson, the owner of the site, posted a little opus saying he would ban anyone supporting the repeal. It's kinda pathetic and sad. Somehow being anti-gay is constitutional.That site makes me throw up in my mouth, just a little.
During the 2008 republican primary, Giuliani supporters were banned en masse, and i suspect Romney supporters are next.I suppose it is only a free republic if everyone is the same.
A 1/3 term Senator. He's only filling the last two years of Byrd's seat.Don't worry, DarkAudit. He keeps it up, I'm sure your state will make sure he is a 1 term Senator.
I am laughing so hard at this AMA statement.Passed 65-33.
The American Family Association said:The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours. They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.
Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.
It's nice how they balance out their homophobia with misogyny. So these "patriots" show their hatred of gays by insulting the women serving in the armed forces, accusing them of weakening our military? Because I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more women "feminizing" the military than gays.The American Family Association said:The armies of other nations have allowed gays to serve openly in the military. The reason they could afford to do this is simple: they could allow homosexuals to serve in their military because we didn’t allow them to serve in ours. They knew they could count on the strength, might, power, and cohesion of the U.S. military to intervene whenever and wherever necessary to pull their fannies out of the fire and squash the forces of tyranny wherever they raised their ugly heads around the world.
Those days are now gone. We will no longer be able to bail out these other emasculated armies because ours will now be feminized and neutered beyond repair, and there is no one left to bail us out. We have been permanently weakened as a military and as a nation by these misguided and treasonous Republican senators, and the world is now a more dangerous place for us all.
From my understanding it does. Starting Wednesday people with stars on their shoulders will begin writing up the regulations for their respective branches, and then pushing the changes throughout. Regulations that implemented DADT will still be in place until that is done. Figure 60 days minimum to be fully implemented, if it gets rolled out in stages that time will be shorter.All I've heard is that it was repealed. Did the bill actually say that gays could openly serve?
DADT was a compromise to stop the Pentagon Witch Hunts of gays in the military. But in the end it did not change anything because the secret of serving closeted kept coming out. And the military just became more ardent in their push to rid the military of gays, which was the opposite of the intention of the bill.
From my understanding it does. Starting Wednesday people with stars on their shoulders will begin writing up the regulations for their respective branches, and then pushing the changes throughout. Regulations that implemented DADT will still be in place until that is done. Figure 60 days minimum to be fully implemented, if it gets rolled out in stages that time will be shorter.[/QUOTE]All I've heard is that it was repealed. Did the bill actually say that gays could openly serve?
DADT was a compromise to stop the Pentagon Witch Hunts of gays in the military. But in the end it did not change anything because the secret of serving closeted kept coming out. And the military just became more ardent in their push to rid the military of gays, which was the opposite of the intention of the bill.
Army policy (can't speak for other branches) no longer includes oral and anal sex as acts of sodomy. I don't know when it changed, I just remember that they stopped being listed in our annual briefings.- The law is meant only to affect a small portion of the military code, and may not affect, for instance, regulations against sodomy (which can be very broadly defined).
Well they still have the majority of the seats until the lame duck session is over.So the moral of the story is that if you give the democrats a super-majority they're useless, but if it's more balanced they get stuff done...
So, has the water turned to blood and is it raining frogs conservative americans?
My hometown is predicted to have it's first White Christmas since 1941. Does that count?So the moral of the story is that if you give the democrats a super-majority they're useless, but if it's more balanced they get stuff done...
So, has the water turned to blood and is it raining frogs conservative americans?
Only if Santa has his rainbow suit on.My hometown is predicted to have it's first White Christmas since 1941. Does that count?