Not enough votes to end DADT filibuster?

[hotatlboi]

He blocked debate on all but 3 sections of the bill

He did nothing of the sort.

I see what you did there. You actually believed what the Republicans were saying. Big mistake lol.

What he did was to say that debate would be limited to these 3 amendments for now, since there was not time to consider dozens of amendments with the other business the Senate had before the recess for the election.

But he clearly stated that all the rest of the amendments would be considered after the recess. The bill was not going to be passed before the recess in any case, it was just going to be debated and the amendment process started.

So what he did was prioritize those 3 amendments. The rest were being tabled until later. Now, that was partly because he wanted to have a vote on DADT and the DREAM Act before the election to energize the Democratic base, the Republicans were right on that. However, their arguments made it sound like they were being shut out of the process completely and wouldn't be allowed to offer any amendments to the Defense bill, which was simply not the case. The other amendments were going to be taken up at a later date.

This was mentioned many times by Levin. The outcome the Republicans were making up could not happen since if they were unsatisfied with the number of amendments they had been allowed to offer they could still have filibustered the final vote on the bill. What they did was stop the debate from even starting.

The Republican senators who were for DADT blocked it because they didn't want the Dems to be able to go into the election having kept their promise on DADT (and potentially DREAM), not because they were not going to be allowed any say in the bill. That's why I'm hoping that once the election is over those members would then support it once passage can't benefit the Dems any longer.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which is why I said it was in part our own laziness. Just a little PR could go a long way, but the dems always find a way to mess things up. A little teaching (PR) is better than changing the way things are done.

True enough. What's needed, though, is 'teachers' who aren't obviously connected to a campaign, and who can teach without sounding like they think they're suffering through doing a favor by talking to people.

Bill Clinton, concerning the economy recently, is a good example: he can't be re-elected President, probably isn't going to run for the Senate either, isn't really tooting anyone's horn, but he's out there explaining the economy and what needs to be done in very simple terms that anyone can grasp, and doing so with passion.

There are other people who have concerns about the repeal of DADT leading to gay service members being victimized.... http://leftface.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/dont-ask-dont-tell-dadt-to-repeal-or-not-to-repeal/

Those concerns don't stand up. If the author's 99.9% of military personnel have no trouble working with gays, then when that 0.1% raises its ignorant, bigoted head to engage in harassment, I strongly believe that probably at least 0.9% are going to take mister 0.1 aside and explain life to him -- probably in Barry Goldwater terms, i.e. if he can shoot straight, we don't care if he is straight.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Republican senators who were for DADT blocked it because they didn't want the Dems to be able to go into the election having kept their promise on DADT (and potentially DREAM), not because they were not going to be allowed any say in the bill. That's why I'm hoping that once the election is over those members would then support it once passage can't benefit the Dems any longer.

Yeah....

Whenever I want to write some twisted, far-out happenings in my JUB story, all I have to do is follow some D.C. politics for a while. People vote for things they can't stand, vote against things they support, speak against something and then vote for it, and if you can follow the reasons you're halfway to writing a superb mystery novel.

Wouldn't it be a kick to dump some kind of truth drug into D.C.'s water system, and watch them all say exactly what they feel and believe for, oh, a month?

 

[hotatlboi]

Sorry one error in that post that should be clarified, what I mean to say was "The Republican senators who were for DADT repeal". I'm hoping they will be more reasonable after the election.

The ones that are actually for the policy will never vote to repeal it in any case.

 

[hotatlboi]

Yeah it was like a party decision that this was not going to be happening before the election.

Still a really dishonorable move imo for those that really wanted to see it repealed since there are no guarantees that it will pass in the lame duck session, but there should be another attempt at least.

 

[Memosexual87]

If I was in the military, I wouldn't want them to know I was gay. I'd be afraid of getting shot during battle.

PS. Yeah, I guess my avatar does look like a giggling little schoolboy. lol.

Dont worry plenty of people would shoot u before they ever knew u were gay.

LMAO! dont join the army if your afraid you might get shot.

 

[Kulindahr]

LMAO! dont join the army if your afraid you might get shot.

Definitely. A good Republican should join the Army because he wants to get shot.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not if we steal it first.

Steal first....


But who's on first?

 

[MoltenRock III]

Additionally, when I said a couple of years ago that I doubted Obama would spend any political capital to undo DADT in his first 2 years, a bunch of "believers" jumped on my ass. I said at the time that because of the 1993 Bill Clinton move as one of his first in office would hang over the Obama WH pretty heavily, and therefor wouldn't be on the agenda at all, until Obama was up for reelection again, sometime after the mid-terms.

And here it's playing out, as I was afraid it might. Let's just hope the testicleless Democrats can actually get this thing done. I despise every Republican, down to the last one of them. They are worthless pieces of shit, and deserve a special place in hell. But, you do have to give them the fact that they vote lockstep with each other, always, always, always. Once in a blue moon you can peel away 1 or maybe 2 Republicans on a given bill, but the other 95% never, ever waiver from the standard party line.

I wish we could get a Nancy Pelosi type leader in the Senate! One who would strip Joe Libertard of his leadership position for his abject betrayal to the party, gutting healthcare reform with Ben Nelson, and supporting Israel more than he supports the USA. A leader that will strip the filibuster from the toolbox of Foxpublicans™. A leader that will force a filibuster attempt into actually having to be what the originators intended; that a Senator must stand at the podium talking non-stop, with no bathroom breaks, while the media's cameras roll. A leader that can pass legislation every bit as quickly as Nancy Pelosi does in the House. A leader who can be trusted to live up to Progressive's mandate for them.

But, as I've said earlier this week, Democrats could fuck up a wet dream. However, at least Democrats have wet dreams. Foxpublican's dicks have dried up and fallen off.

 

[hotatlboi]

Foxpublican's dicks have dried up and fallen off.

Really? Then why would their teenage male staffers or random people in the restroom be interested in them?

 

[koontzfanwv]

Well Collins has stated she will vote no.

Up to Brown, Lugar and the rest of the Dems now.

Not looking good.

If it wasn't for a Democrat,DADT wouldn't exist nor would this thread

 

[hotatlboi]

If it wasn't for a Democrat,DADT wouldn't exist nor would this thread

That's right, if Clinton had not been elected, the far more onerous policy of "Ask and Ban" might still be in place.

DADT was a step forward which was a result of Clinton's efforts to give equal rights to gays. You see, the Democrat usually attempts to move that process forward, while the Republican will block and obstruct it (or support undoing past progress).

 

[scream4ever]

If it wasn't for a Democrat,DADT wouldn't exist nor would this thread

Would you rather have DADT or gays being flat out banned from the military? That's how it was before, and Bill Clinton wanted to flat out repeal said ban, though he didn't have enough support, which is why DADT exists, yes.

 

[koontzfanwv]

Would you rather have DADT or gays being flat out banned from the military? That's how it was before, and Bill Clinton wanted to flat out repeal said ban, though he didn't have enough support, which is why DADT exists, yes.

I'd rather have DADT anyday i just see a bunch of hypocrisy and i point it out. I will continue to. Whatever party the person belongs to.

 

[MoltenRock III]

That's right, if Clinton had not been elected, the far more onerous policy of "Ask and Ban" might still be in place.

DADT was a step forward which was a result of Clinton's efforts to give equal rights to gays. You see, the Democrat usually attempts to move that process forward, while the Republican will block and obstruct it (or support undoing past progress).

Military leaders lied to Clinton and abused the law to its fullest extent. Some of these homophobes that have initiated witch hunts, been a part of, or lied to get an investigation started against our brethren have met their maker and fate from having poor intelligence and well trained support because of the huge gap kicking out Farsi and Arabic speaking gay military guys. You cannot hide, nor run, from your karma you stack up.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WdPQbhN4wg[/ame]

 

[koontzfanwv]

Military leaders lied to Clinton and abused the law to its fullest extent. Some of these homophobes that have initiated witch hunts, been a part of, or lied to get an investigation started against our brethren have met their maker and fate from having poor intelligence and well trained support because of the huge gap kicking out Farsi and Arabic speaking gay military guys. You cannot hide, nor run, from your karma you stack up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WdPQbhN4wg

I guess Clinton wasn't happy with the decision to ban gays and decided that DADT would be the best way to help gays serve admirably-this reversed the decision made in FDR'S administration to ban us. Now perhaps Clinton can prove he'sactually on our side by not using the blame game concerning history but by coming out as pro gay marriage,today.

 

[Kulindahr]

DADT was a step forward which was a result of Clinton's efforts to give equal rights to gays. You see, the Democrat usually attempts to move that process forward, while the Republican will block and obstruct it (or support undoing past progress).

I'd call it a drunken lurch rather than a step, but at least it was forward. In a way it could be regarded as "reactionary progressivism", because no one just up and decided, "Hey, let's do things this way"; it was a reaction to Congress being ready to actually impose a policy of witch hunts.

Military leaders lied to Clinton and abused the law to its fullest extent. Some of these homophobes that have initiated witch hunts, been a part of, or lied to get an investigation started against our brethren have met their maker and fate from having poor intelligence and well trained support because of the huge gap kicking out Farsi and Arabic speaking gay military guys. You cannot hide, nor run, from your karma you stack up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WdPQbhN4wg

Wow -- I remember Powell describing it that way! And Clinton's right; that sure wasn't what they got, especially not at the start. But historically, the initial reaction should have been expected; after all, when Truman ordered the military integrated, there was a lot of using black troops as cannon fodder just because they were black, at the start. That settled down (for various reasons), just as things did with DADT.


BTW, if you can't run from your karma, then there should be a whole rash of heart attacks and strokes among high-level Republicans and religious leaders due any time now.

 

[hotatlboi]

The Senate races in Illinois and West Virginia are extremely critical to the chances of DADT repeal passing in the lame duck session. If Republicans win both of these seats it will seriously complicate things due to those states' laws which expire the current senator's term after the election.

If you live in either of those states please be sure to vote and encourage others to do so.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry, no. It only works that way in your twisted worldview.

DADT was a partial victory for homophobes, not for straights.
When you deny Constitutional rights to some, we are all diminished.

To be more precise, that's an adversarial-confrontational zero-sum worldview, where everything is done by opponents out to get each other and there are no partial victories. Unfortunately, a great number of Americans view things that way, maybe even a majority.

 

[Kulindahr]

I guess Clinton wasn't happy with the decision to ban gays and decided that DADT would be the best way to help gays serve admirably-this reversed the decision made in FDR'S administration to ban us. Now perhaps Clinton can prove he'sactually on our side by not using the blame game concerning history but by coming out as pro gay marriage,today.

So you think that he'd help things by confusing the issue?

And second lieutenant in ROTC could tell you that's messed up: you have a goal, you fight for the goal, you don't divide your attention.

Point of information: how is Clinton "using the blame game"?