DADT: Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban

[iman]

What a whining spineless way to beg to continue being a victim!



Foolishness. Your argument amounts to "Let's all be spineless and kiss their feet even while they're shitting on us".

A third party -- if, say, all the gays in the country along with their friends voted Libertarian next election, unless there was a candidate with a strong proven record -- would send a message to the Democrats that they don't own us. There are a lot of races out there that are close, and the Democrats would likely lose their majority in at least one house.

You think they wouldn't pay attention?

And if someone gathered donations from gays, until there was a huge amount, and went on TV saying, "The Democratic Party talks a good talk but they're not much for action. Since they've mucked around in the Congress not just on our issues but on other major items, this check for $30,000,000 is going to the Libertarian Party", you don't think the DNC would go "Shit! Repeal DADT now, before the Republicans roll over us!"

Of course it will never happen, because of the hypnotizing mantra for the brainless, "You'll waste your vote. You'll waste your money. You'll waste your vote. You'll waste your money."

Those who kiss people's feet and get shit on are people who deserve to get shit on.

Actually my argument is; Let's all be mature and realistic.

There is no chance in hell that "all the gays in the country along with their friends are going to vote Libertarian" or even a responsible party.

The idea that acting like all the other diverse groups in the Democratic Party is "spineless" is silly and the idea that the Dems are "shitting" on us is even sillier. If the Dems are "shitting" on us, what are the Republicans doing?

We are either Democrats or we are Republicans and any other choice is to simply opt out of the process and choose to gratify one's own ego rather than do what's right for the country. If you want to be libertarian, go live in the desert with Uncle Ted.

Ted Kaczynski​

 

[Centexfarmer]

^A third party would be fine for the two major parties because it would totally neutralize gay rights activists.

I completely get where you're coming from.

From the last article that I linked to:

So the question for gay rights advocates hoping to work within the two-party system is not whether they can mainstream their agenda to the point where it becomes a nonpartisan affair à la gun rights or Israel, but whether either party can be trusted as a vehicle of gay progress.

The point is as Gay Voters (regardless of party) it appears that we're still being "neutralized" over politics; our "lobby isn't as big," or "where are you going to go? etc. ..."

I'm tired of politically being some party's bitch!

I don't see a third party as providing many more options.

The so called "Libertarian Party" is so scatter shot to even be considered a galvanized, cohesive, focused, or even a serious challenger on a national level to the current two party system from my current perspective.

The question is: How to effectively get beyond this?

 

[jackoroe]

Actually my argument is; Let's all be mature and realistic.

There is no chance in hell that "all the gays in the country along with their friends are going to vote Libertarian" or even a responsible party.

The idea that acting like all the other diverse groups in the Democratic Party is "spineless" is silly and the idea that the Dems are "shitting" on us is even sillier. If the Dems are "shitting" on us, what are the Republicans doing?

We are either Democrats or we are Republicans and any other choice is to simply opt out of the process and choose to gratify one's own ego rather than do what's right for the country. If you want to be libertarian, go live in the desert with Uncle Ted.

Ted Kaczynski​

Kaczynski was an anarchist, not a libertarian. And it wasn't the desert. It was Montana.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Senator Levin (D-MI) lining up DADT repeal hearings.

While you all go about biting the hands that feed you your rights, I just thought everyone should know and appreciate what the Democratic Party is doing for us.

Senator Carl Levin from Michigan, a Democrat, is lining up hearings in the Senate in coming weeks.


He is also working on having star witnesses appear, including top brass in the military with neutral views on the bad, Joint Chief of Staff Admiral Mullen, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.



So clearly abandoning the Democratic Party now will get us nowhere...

You know what they will do when we say "fuck them?" They won't grovel and say sorry for 4% of America that does not actually uniformly care much about their own civil rights struggles. They will say "fuck you too" as we have seen in New Jersey.

Source

No, if we had guts and all did tell them where to go, they'd lose Congress.

Then they'd sit up and listen. That's how so much socialism got into both sides of the "Re-Elect Us" party -- the Socialist Party got big enough to start costing people elections, regularly. So R. & D. politicians sat down and added as much socialism as they could stomach to their platforms.

The trouble is that no one has much of a respect for rights in their platforms and less in practice. That's why I say all many-millions of us should vote Libertarian: it would say we are interested in rights, not games.

 

[iman]

Kaczynski was an anarchist, not a libertarian. And it wasn't the desert. It was Montana.

Distinctions without a difference to me, but I will accept your corrections.

 

[JB3]

Actually my argument is; Let's all be mature and realistic.

There is no chance in hell that "all the gays in the country along with their friends are going to vote Libertarian" or even a responsible party.

The idea that acting like all the other diverse groups in the Democratic Party is "spineless" is silly and the idea that the Dems are "shitting" on us is even sillier. If the Dems are "shitting" on us, what are the Republicans doing?

We are either Democrats or we are Republicans and any other choice is to simply opt out of the process and choose to gratify one's own ego rather than do what's right for the country. If you want to be libertarian, go live in the desert with Uncle Ted.

You don't understand what's being advocated. Opting out of the process does not gratify one's ego; it says to both of the parties (and specifically to democrats) that if they're not going to do what they promised, they're not going to get our vote and they're going to lose elections because of it.

The ONLY power we have is our vote. If they're not listening to us, if they're pandering to us to get our votes and turning their backs on us, why should we continue to support them? Only a coward and a fool would continue to support a party that panders to them for their votes in election years and conveniently forgets their promises when our support is no longer needed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Distinctions without a difference to me, but I will accept your corrections.

That shows a very shallow understanding of political matters.

 

[Kulindahr]

You don't understand what's being advocated. Opting out of the process does not gratify one's ego; it says to both of the parties (and specifically to democrats) that if they're not going to do what they promised, they're not going to get our vote and they're going to lose elections because of it.

The ONLY power we have is our vote. If they're not listening to us, if they're pandering to us to get our votes and turning their backs on us, why should we continue to support them? Only a coward and a fool would continue to support a party that panders to them for their votes in election years and conveniently forgets their promises when our support is no longer needed.

Besides which, if you vote, you haven't "opted out". Not voting at all is opting out; voting is making a statement.

 

[NickCole]

I don't advocate opting out and I don't advocate for a third party. Not that I wouldn't join and help fund a third party if a genuine leader put a decent one together, but I'm not doing it and I'm not holding my breath. I believe if you want real change you either start a movement (3rd party) or, until something better presents itself, you work with what's available.

What I and some others who have been financial supporters of candidates suggest is a partisan-blind accountability and appreciation - criticism of unkept promises and withholding our support, financial and otherwise, until action is taken, and praise when even a conservative does something that helps us or the causes we support. Give to the Carl Levins and Joe Sestaks, and there are others, and do not give to politicians like Obama or the DNC because they haven't earned it. Some of them will ignore the loss but some will want to regain the support and quiet our criticism.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't advocate opting out and I don't advocate for a third party. Not that I wouldn't join and help fund a third party if a genuine leader put a decent one together, but I'm not doing it and I'm not holding my breath. I believe if you want real change you either start a movement (3rd party) or, until something better presents itself, you work with what's available.

What I and some others who have been financial supporters of candidates suggest is a partisan-blind accountability and appreciation - criticism of unkept promises and withholding our support, financial and otherwise, until action is taken, and praise when even a conservative does something that helps us or the causes we support. Give to the Carl Levins and Joe Sestaks, and there are others, and do not give to politicians like Obama or the DNC because they haven't earned it. Some of them will ignore the loss but some will want to regain the support and quiet our criticism.

"Withholding... support, financial and otherwise", means not voting for those who don't support you. But if neither wing of the DemoPublican "Re-Elect Us" party is on your side, not voting at all is foolish: a vote not cast has no meaning. That's where you vote for a third party candidate. Even if not everyone opted for the same alternate party, a large surge in votes to them would be a cause for concern to the establishment.

 

[NickCole]

"Withholding... support, financial and otherwise", means not voting for those who don't support you. But if neither wing of the DemoPublican "Re-Elect Us" party is on your side, not voting at all is foolish: a vote not cast has no meaning. That's where you vote for a third party candidate. Even if not everyone opted for the same alternate party, a large surge in votes to them would be a cause for concern to the establishment.

There are Democrats who are on our side and I think it's stupid to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The DNC has not been supportive since Obama took over. Obama is a con man and any gay, or progressive, who supports him at this point is a fool. But that doesn't mean all Democratic candidates are the same; they are not. I haven't given up on Democrats, certainly not on candidates who are principled Democrats with a record of supporting gay rights. Democratic principles are well aligned with gay rights and there are Democratic elected officials who genuinely advocate for us. But I'm not fooled by a letter printed next to their name or seductive propaganda or by crowds trying to bully me into supporting a lying cult figure; I don't lay down and let deceitful users like Barack Obama leave tire tracks on my backside, but also I don't assume that because Obama calls himself a Democrat that means all Democrats are untrustworthy.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It's amazing!

Even under a Democratic President, and up until yesterday a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress, even the Democrats seem to be using our Equality as "political footballs."

The difference is the Republicans seek to actively legislate against us, while the Democrats seem to only "offer" a modicum of effort to protect us against them.

All the while playing us like the second runner up for home coming queen for political contributions promising us that we'll be "Home Coming Queen" NEXT YEAR!

Even if the the few Gay Democrats in Congress really want to stick their necks out so far as to provide any really meaning, or substance to back up their claims of solidarity for our Equality, they're only doing so at the urging of the Human Rights Campaign (Despite their polished PR Campaign...which my $$$ helped to finance to convince me to continue my support, they're contribution of my money for their manipulative campaigns to earn it), or the LAMBDA Legal Defense lobby which suggest that I should continue to financially contribute based upon a future promise of better job performance.

I'm sorry.

I found myself relying upon cock-sucker Corporations like WALMART, in an "hourly management position" mind you, that only rewards current performance based upon the perception of whatever psycho bitch that you happen to be working for at any given "Super Center." Count them the next time you take a road trip; and know that on average that there are 350 employees at each you that you see...

The Democrats SUCK on the issue of Equality, the Republican blow donkey dick where ever they can find it, and we'd be better off giving our money to a charity of our choice than donating it to either party.

I've decided that I'm not giving one red cent to any national campaign for anything.

I'll toss a few buck to a candidate as a token measure (Democrat or Libertarian...the GOP and go fuck themselfs!), in hopes that they might actually stand a chance, and to Equality Texas because as a Texan they'll be there to lobby on my behalf.

But the Texas Democratic Party, and the DNC and all of their affiliates; the Senate and the House will be, from this moment forward, barking up the wrong tree!

 

[hotatlboi]

and up until yesterday a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress

Not "up until yesterday", still. The Dems still have an 18 vote majority in the Senate.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Not "up until yesterday", still. The Dems still have an 18 vote majority in the Senate.

Fair enough.

So what you're saying is that the "pundits" are making too much of nothing about a Republican in MA taking Ted Kennedy's former Senate Seat?

I was under the impression that they only "majority" that the Democrats held in the United States Senate was a 60 proof majority to prevent a Republican filibuster.

Regardless of how the House of Representative go, it still has to have the approval of the Senate.

The Democrats...once again...have proven that the only thing that they're good at is "snatching defeat" out of the jaws of victory!

 

[hotatlboi]

The Democratic Senators have a nine vote majority, and an 18 vote disparity with Republican Senators.

sorry, wrong terminology. That they still have a majority was what I was trying to emphasize. Just not the filibuster proof majority.

 

[hotatlboi]

I was under the impression that they only "majority" that the Democrats held in the United States Senate was a 60 proof majority to prevent a Republican filibuster.

51 is a majority. That majority means you set the legislative agenda, you get majorities and chairmanships on all the committees, you get to make the rules for how stuff is voted on and brought to consideration, etc.

The 60 vote threshold is a larger majority needed to break a filibuster, it's true they no longer have that, but they still have a majority.

 

[Centexfarmer]

51 is a majority. That majority means you set the legislative agenda, you get majorities and chairmanships on all the committees, you get to make the rules for how stuff is voted on and brought to consideration, etc.

The 60 vote threshold is a larger majority needed to break a filibuster, it's true they no longer have that, but they still have a majority.

Then please point out to me when that majority represents a voting majority for the 2008 Democratic Party Platform from which this mess is supposed to originate from, and which Senators are going to work their asses off to get re-elected without any regard to the "people's party platform."

 

[hotatlboi]

Then please point out to me when that majority represents a voting majority for the 2008 Democratic Party Platform from which this mess is supposed to originate from, and which Senators are going to work their asses off to get re-elected without any regard to the "people's party platform."

It represents a voting majority on any bill that there is not a filibuster on, and on any bill that they can choose to consider another way, such as with reconciliation.

It is true that all the major bills (health care, climate change, financial regulations, et al) probably will be filibustered. However they can either draft a bipartisan bill that attracts at least one Republican, or they can use reconciliation.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It represents a voting majority on any bill that there is not a filibuster on, and on any bill that they can choose to consider another way, such as with reconciliation.

It is true that all the major bills (health care, climate change, financial regulations, et al) probably will be filibustered. However they can either draft a bipartisan bill that attracts at least one Republican, or they can use reconciliation.

See?

I LOVE THAT!



1,200+ PAGES of useless BULLSHIT!

So that one Senator can go back to their consituence and say that we did something "bipartisan," and another to go back and say that they thwarted some "liberal agenda" bullshiit!

All the while nothing really changed except that both parties found a reason to ship more American jobs overseas.

 

[JB3]

It represents a voting majority on any bill that there is not a filibuster on, and on any bill that they can choose to consider another way, such as with reconciliation.

It is true that all the major bills (health care, climate change, financial regulations, et al) probably will be filibustered. However they can either draft a bipartisan bill that attracts at least one Republican, or they can use reconciliation.

They can't use reconciliation for the healthcare bill or climate change bill using reconciliation, because the legislation is too far reaching for it to be used. Dick Durbin came out today and said that the only way a healthcare bill could be passed using reconciliation is if ALL of the elements related to insurance reform were stripped from it.