E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Ken Strickland
The fight to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell is getting a bit nasty between the Senate offices of Majority Leader Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman and Republican Susan Collins, all of whom support ending the ban.
It's gotten so contentious that Lieberman released a written statement defending Collins against "baseless allegations" from Democratic aides that Collins is blocking the bill.
"Senator Collins has been working in good faith to achieve an agreement on the process to move forward with the defense bill that contains the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" he said.
Collins received a call from the president yesterday on the matter, according to sources with knowledge about the conversation.
In remarks to reporters on Wednesday afternoon, Lieberman called on Reid not to hold a vote to bring the bill to the floor this evening -- which Reid indicated was "likely" earlier today -- until Collins and Reid reach an agreement.
What's the deal?
While Collins strongly supports repeal, she is reluctant to bring the larger defense bill that includes the DADT provision to the floor without being given assurances that there is a "fair and open" process. In other words, she wants to make sure that senators have to opportunities to debate and vote on several amendments to the sweeping legislation.
Lieberman says he and Collins have been working with Reid's office to negotiate an agreement to bring the bill to the floor in the fast-waning days of the session.
As details of the talks have emerged, however, it's evident that those negotiations haven't been going well.
Democratic aides say Reid has made a reasonable offer that Collins won't accept: 15 amendments, 17 hours of debate, and room to negotiate more.
Sources close to Collins dispute that claim, suggesting that the Maine senator's discussion with Reid was not that cut and dry.
And Lieberman says the Democrats blaming Collins don't know what they're talking about.
"I categorically reject reports by uninformed staffers who have suggested" Collins is not working in 'good faith,'" Lieberman said. "I call on those responsible for such baseless allegations to stop immediately and instead work to get to an agreement to bring this critical bill to the floor for Senate action."
Lieberman says if an agreement can be reached to get the defense bill on the floor, he's confident the votes are there to repeal the ban.
"It is now more clear than ever that we have 60 or more votes in support of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' so it is vitally important to reach agreement on the right process to move forward," he said in his statement.
Reaching a so-called "time agreement" with Collins and Lieberman isn't Reid's only obstacle to getting the bill to the floor. Last week, Republicans told Reid in a letter that they are collectively committed to blocking any bill from coming to the floor that doesn't address extension of the Bush tax cuts or funding of the government.
Reid said earlier Wednesday it was "likely" he would call for a vote to bring the defense bill to the floor tonight. That would happen after series of votes currently scheduled to begin at 4pm ET.
Leave a Comment:
Something like this happened during the Health Insurance Reform process. "Fair and open" debate, to the Republicans at that time, meant an opportunity to devote weeks to posing amendment after amendment to essentially gut the bill, and to attach unrelated measure that otherwise would never get onto the Senate floor at all.
It is likely that's the goal in this back-and-forth, too.
Passing both DADT and the overall Defense Appropriation Bill is very important. If the Republicans expect the tax extension measure deal to work, they need to quit stalling here and knuckle down to the task at hand. There's no need to attempt to play games with this measure.
Social issues are sweet and the liberals get to feel really, really good about making the world more perfect. But what about the bad guys that fly planes into our buildings and all of the ones that want nothing more than to kill Americans. They don't care about gays, lesbians, cross dressers, etc.
Repeal of DADT is ASININE.
From NRO/Oliver North piece:
In a time of war, heck anytime with the Irans,N. Koreas, etc. of the world, we can't afford to risk our military on a politically correct, social engineering project based on a boggus, manipulated report that doesn't even address the key fundamental issues.
One third of Marines and Soldiers in combat arms would consider getting out if this passes.
What in the past 17 years has happened to a GLBT/whatever that would warrant the risk of losing 250,000 troops (The guys that do the actual military stuff like fighting) in a time of war and growing aggression.
DADT repeal is ABSURD.
"social engineering project based on a boggus, manipulated report that doesn't even address the key fundamental issues."
Got any credible sources to back that up?
"What in the past 17 years has happened to a GLBT/whatever"
Oh, I don't know, like a whole group of folks, 443 last year, 627 in 2007 for the "crime" of being the way they were made.
http://washingtonindependent.com/83038/military-fired-443-servicemembers-for-being-gay-last-year
You are quoting Ollie North and asking "what about the bad guys" at the same time? Wow, time to find a better role model...Ollie helped arm some of those bad guys (Iran) and then helped funnel the money to some other bad guys (Contra Rebels - Nicaragua). Sure, he was a military hero - but ultimately he became a felon and traitor.
DADT is ABSURD.
DADT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
"What in the past 17 years has happened to a GLBT/whatever"
Oh, I don't know, like a whole group of folks, 443 last year, 627 in 2007 for the "crime" of being the way they were made."
...nother person who doesn't believe it's a choice... So where is that 'gay' gene anyway?
The Washington Independent is more credible National Review? Wow. I don't know, RCP .. everyone has articles on it. Don't read anything most people have heard of.
But off the top of my head, does the report address Recruiting, Retention, Unit Effectiveness in a serious manner? Address the functional imperative to fight and those numbers. What about inter-squad dating. Can they sleep together? Can they cross dress? If a straight pops off, is that hate speech? What about affirmative action - all of those years of being wronged and they don't deserve special consideration? What about serving in countries where homosexuality is crime? On and On. Heard of this discussed? Legalize consensual sodomy? Separate billeting or do you force a 17 year old who's religious beliefs differ to sleep with them? Can he get out with an honorable discharge if he can't put up with it? On and On. Got the answers?
Oh really, your article didn't say they were discharged for that. What did they actaully do? How many just decide they didn't want to go to Afghanistan, or just wanted out. You don't know.
Lance- Since sexual orientation is a "choice" how old were you when you decided to be heterosexual?
And bob, it was a report on a survey asking for the opinions of the military and their families. The purpose was not to address and set every single policy issue and answer every question. How does that make the report "boggus (sic) and manipulated," because it didn't support your point of view? And you still didn't give me a credible source that the report is any of those things you stated.
The article I posted stated that those members were discharged from the service due to DADT. They didn't have to "do" anything.
For the record, the words Don't Ask Don't Tell do not appear anywhere in the actual law. Your article is bull sh!t if it said that.
It is Bull Sh!t to suggest that they "didn't have to do anything" and were nonetheless discharged.
Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”
You're clueless.
I cited the key issue this report does not address. I cited off the top of my head many of the other issues that the survey ignores and issues that have not been addressed. I stated there is no pertinent military reason for the change.
Get back to me when you develop the ability to argue your asinine point.
Yet another issue that the Republicans aren't listening to the American on.
72% of Americans want it repealed. The study says it won't affect effectiveness, which is a "duh", as they are all working well together now.
Don't tell me that they don't know who's gay and who's not. They do.
Anyone who says that being gay is a "choice", via kharma, will return in the next life as gay. At that point, be sure to remind yourself it was a choice.
bob.... you and your so-called arguments are what is absurd. Why don't you just admit that you're a homophobe. You are just like so many who want life their way and don't want to live up to the American value of "equality for all." Go away.
bob-1805084 - You and the others who oppose repeal of DADT have a right to your opinions. However, you do not have a right to use small pieces of factual material, in an incomplete fashion, to create propaganda the reverse the meaning of the original material. You do not hve a right tomake misleading arguments on the basis of unconnected and unsupported leaps of judgement.
Your citation does not actually do anything for your argument. I'm repeating it here so that afterward I can pull the wings and antennae off this mayfly:
The fact that this text, which in itself reveals bias and prejudice, claims as fact what the U.S. military itself has agreed is not at all true. The text was simply justification for a policy that is now about to be reversed.
On the basis of that citation, you then claimed the persons dismissed from service under DADT had to have done something "wrong" ("demonstrate") or they wouldn't have been thrown out. The problem is that DADT actually supercedes the code - as long as any servicemember becomes known, through personal admission or confession after an accusation (which happens a lot because some comrades decide to "get" a victim), as either gay or lesbian, then he or she is gone. Doesn't require any bad behavior at all.
But your arguments implied that they had made unwelcome advances or other physical demonstrations of thier preferences, subliminally arousing disgust among those who are either homophobic or as heterosexuals find some ideas repellent.
You are free to dismiss the survey recently reported, that showed overall the military doesn't believe there's a problem with gay enlisted and officers serving. If the survey doesn't support your preconceived opinion, then obvious it must be wrong, eh? Don't bother answering, your use of "citations" has been shown to be fatally flawed and we won't get any further along by repeating your prior blather.
As for whether "there is no pertinent military reason for the change," of course there is.First, the military has made immense investement in the training and development of the gay and lesbian personnel who were dismissed, and at a time when all military resources are strained to their limits, the contributions of those personnel are intrinsically valuable. Beyond that is the humane aspect. Perahps a bullet has no feelings, but the people who fire them do. In fact, it is arguable that unit cohesion is enhanced when the personnel believe they are all valued and appreciated both for themselves as well as because they are skilled and motivated service members.
You wanted the point argued. Well, there it is. Take your homophobia and wash it down with a dose of ipecac.
bob-
Actually the report does address many of your questions. http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf I have included relevant page numbers.
"But off the top of my head, does the report address Recruiting, Retention, Unit Effectiveness in a serious manner? Address the functional imperative to fight and those numbers." This is addressed on p. 9.
"What about inter-squad dating. Can they sleep together? Can they cross dress?" Found on p. 11 and 16.
"If a straight pops off, is that hate speech?" Discussed indirectly on p. 10.
"What about affirmative action - all of those years of being wronged and they don't deserve special consideration?" Addressed on p. 10 and 13.
"What about serving in countries where homosexuality is crime? On and On." Page 8 provides a discussion of how our foreign allies have handled having GLB folks in the military. And really, do we always go by the standards of the countries where we are? For instance do all female military in the Middle East wear the burkha?
"Legalize consensual sodomy?" Indirectly discussed on p. 11 in "Standards of Conduct."
"Separate billeting or do you force a 17 year old who's religious beliefs differ to sleep with them? Can he get out with an honorable discharge if he can't put up with it? On and On. Got the answers?" Addressed on p. 11-12.
So if you had actually read the report yourself, your questions would have been answered. As John A says, you have a right to your opinion, uninformed as it is.
As for this stuff, "You're clueless." and "Get back to me when you develop the ability to argue your asinine point," I'll just say that insults and name-calling are usually resorted to by folks who don't have a good factual argument.
watching these politicians get anything done is like watching paint dry. they are soooooooo slowwwww
Seriously, wish they would get over themselves, be rational and come to a conclusion its not hard.
Why do I get the feeling that Harry Reid is more concerned about getting a test vote that fails so that he can have his 30 second soundbyte than he is about getting DADT passed. He is showing the same spinelessness the Democrats showed in not passing the middle class extension of the Bush tax cuts using reconcialtion. Of course, everyone will blame Obama for DADT not being passed.
Louisiana Don...and just how is drano going "to pay for that"? Are you God, judge and jury and the hit squad? When someone parrots typical religious reasons to justify bigotry and hatred, it is crap. I guess you'll make me pay also. LOL I'm shaking in my boots!
Obama is a one and done President. He shouldn't have been elected in the first place, no experience doing anything but read a teleprompter. I don't give a asdfa about homo's in the military. I just don't like liberals.
Get over it. Bitterness is neither pretty nor productive.
This is just another attempt to force the homosexual agenda upon all Americans.
The Lord has called this an abomination, you may not believe in God, but the Lord will judge these actions.
Then shut your trap, stop pointing your finger and let him deal with it! I think it goes something like, Thou shalt not judge.
No it don't go something like that. What do you think, that's one of the Ten Commandments? Are you as dumb as you sound?
I wish someone would tell me what the "homosexual agenda" is. And is there a "heterosexual agenda" as well?
OMG, you are just wrong for that. Accusing someone of Rape, and you don't even know them. What's up with that? Everyone knows that's the Catholics, I'm not Catholic..
LD, you may not be Catholic but you are definitely a bigot.
DrDr - The homosexual agenda is basically to have the Defense of Marriage Act repealed, and to have the federal courts to allow gay marriages throughout the United States. The DADT is one step in that direction. The military should not be used to push social issues. The number of gays serving in the military and the number of gays that have been discharged is less than 1% of military members.
Wsfcret ... so, at a time of war, we should arbitratily require some 20,000 military personel to lie to their superiors (assuming your 1% number is correct.) That's what DADT requires.
Here it is:
http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda.html
The homosexual agenda is the want for the same rights of every other tax paying American citizen. If you want to delude yourself with passages from the Bible and put yourself on a high horse, go right ahead, we'll ignore and mock you like free thinking people have done for centuries. But don't put your Christian agenda in my face and keep it out of our governmental polices.
Its funny watching 'Christians' be adamantly against homosexuality but not against shellfish eaters, wiccans, or any other things deemed abomination in the Bible. Just goes to show you how ignorant and bigoted they really are.
Kind of like the religious crap you keep trying to feed your flock right?
and Louisiana Don - who cares who you like or dislike, you're not relevant to anyone besides yourself.
Religious crap? You will pay for that.
I'm waiting....
Who are you relavent to? Just the other Lib bloggers? I don't care
Hes got it pretty right, most things written in the Bible are outrageously outdated and should never be used to judge morality in modern day society.
Another gem from your beloved hate spewing Leviticus:
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Leviticus 20:9
DADT is bad Policy. DADT is Chicken Poop Policy. DADT is hypocritical Policy. No modern nation other than the United States would spend more than ten minutes debating this awful policy, let alone studying the beejesus out of it, but then no modern nation other than the US would have come up with it in the first place! It is long past time to end this defective and hypocritical policy.
Besides we need the rest of that bill past!
Please, let's just get something done.
I agree, lets get something done. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Send illegals back to their country of origin, close the borders with our military. That's a good start.
LD - SIASD.
LD-
Since you want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent......how do we pay for that?
That would be a good start!
The same way we pay for unemployment for another year. You only want to pay for something if it's something you don't want. Sad.
"You only want to pay for something if it's something you don't want. "
I, of course, am loving this.
There is a lack of reporting here. I'm going to start with the proposition that Reid, Lieberman and Collins are all sane, but have separate agendas (something more than just meaningless test votes). That's what we need to know in order to decide who if anyone is being unreasonable. What amendments does Collins need? Is this a concession to her GOP minority which knows they are going to lose the vote, but want to create lots of political cover? Is this a Collins stunt to show her independence and to protect her relevancy and her seat from a tea party attack? Why does Reid want to annoy? Has Collins violated some trust with Reid (maybe on health care, although I think that was Snowe), so that he really doesn't want to work with her? Whose battle is this really?
If you were scheduled to die and a man offered to die for you and the judge said he would allow that. Then that man died for you, you would praise him for the rest of your life. You would go to his house and try to learn more about that man. Then if someone told you, yes he died for you and wanted you to have this, his diary you would read it and try to learn more about that man. That man was Jesus and that diary is the Bible. I'm just saying.
And if that man's family treated everyone who wasn't exactly like them like cr*p, you'd wonder if they were really related to him.
You ARE aware that Jesus didn't write the Bible, aren't you? It was written hundreds of years after He died by people who didn't even know him.
I do know this, Hundreds of years before him and after him. Old Testiment and New Testiment.
If I allowed a man to die for me when it was my place to die, I would feel like the biggest dick on earth.
Hey Heartlight3 The Bible is God's word inspired by Him to those who wrote it, through the Holy Spirit. That is why is called God's word, a true beliver in Christ looks at the Bible as God's own Words because it was inspired by Him to be written by those who did. They were the tools the Creator used to put His Word down so that all could see and read and hear His Word.
He does say do not judge for you will be judge with the same measure you judge with.
Actually, the Bible was written about 700 AD by people looking for a way to control the population. Just look at LD's slavish adherence, and total lack of knowlege about (but I digress), to the bible for how well it works. Christianity is no more true than Buddhism, Islam or any other man made religion. It is the spirit/soul inside of each of us that is important.
" That man was Jesus and that diary is the Bible. I'm just saying."
I'm glad this gives you comfort. I'm also glad that just because YOU believe it, doesn't make it MY reality.
See how easy it is?
MikeInNY
If I allowed a man to die for me when it was my place to die, I would feel like the biggest dick on earth.
But Mike- would you at least still bring the pork chops?
Actually, Frostbyte, the text may purport to cover over 2500 years of history but it was not written until around 700AD. It is fiction and there is absoutely no proof of any of the events happening or any of the text dating back before that time. In fact, there are many ancient writings from before the time the bible purports to cover that have the exact same stories in them.
Believe the fiction if you want but you have failed to prove my statements in error. They are only clearly in error in your uninformed mind (see how that works?). Martin Luther and 1546 are clearly more than a year or two later than 700BC.
You need to do a bit more research outside of the religious echo chamber.
That's because we only elect a Democratic Congress for 20 months, but a Republican Congress for 26 months.
Sounds like Frostbyte wants to ignore the will of the voters who elected their current representatives.
Except we're not talking here about who provides more charity. We're talking about how the so-called "religious" treat gays and lesbians. A good deed in one domain does not cancel out bigotry and hatred in another.
"If they don't do what YOU want them to then all the good they do is insignificant. If they don't support YOUR cause then all the people that won't die of hunger don't matter. If they don't support YOUR position then all the medicines and medical care supplied to those in need regardless of their race, creed, religion or sexual orientation means nothing."
Where EXACTLY did I say this?
"If they won't support YOUR goals then they're terrible, horrible folks worthy only of the scorn you show them. If they won't embrace YOUR views then you're justified in saying things like "they treat everyone that isn't exactly like them like crap", even though that's plainly not true."
Really, no one on the religious right treats gays and lesbians badly? Have you even READ the threads on here? And did I characterize EVERYONE? No, I said "And if that man's family treated everyone who wasn't exactly like them like cr*p, you'd wonder if they were really related to him."
"I get it, you hate them, you slander them, you accuse them, and you demonize them because they refuse to give you what you want. Just like in this discussion, you want to set the rules and you want them to live by the rules you set. You're exactly like what you hate so much, I don't see any difference."
No, I really hate no one. I have slandered no one, and I demonize no one. Show me anywhere where I have done so. You can't because it hasn't happened. Folks who behave badly (like holding up signs at military funerals proclaiming "God hates fags") and treat others badly have demonized themselves.
"You said "they treat everyone that isn't exactly like them like crap". Obviously you meant everyone that isn't like "them", and the "them" in question is Christians. Your hypothetical "if" doesn't change the meaning of what you said, you are clearly accusing with your tone and syntax. In context, "that mans family" can be none other than Christians."
No, I said IF they treat....etc. " You can't take out some of what I said and then insist the meaning is the same. And I never said "All Christians." You can ignore what I actually said and read into it whatever insult you want. It does not change the meaning. And btw this is the internet, how do you have any clue what my "tone" is? You are inferring my tone here, quite a reach.
"If you mean to insult people of faith you've succeeded, I don't blame them for opposing you. While you're at it you're doing a great job of insulting every one else that doesn't agree with you no matter if they're "religious" by your definition or not. Everyone that doesn't agree with you, according to you, are religious hateful bigots."
Except I NEVER said this. You inferred it. This sounds like your issue, not mine.
"Here you tried to tell me what I could or couldn't talk about, like you're the one who sets the rules of the conversation, then you said that the "religious" treat gays and lesbians with bigotry and hatred:"
I NEVER tried to tell you what you could or couldn't talk about. I reminded you of the topic of the thread, which is different. Honestly, that interpretation is SO over the top. Are you just looking for a fight or something? And did you notice the word 'religious' was in quotes? What did you think that meant, that those who hate and stigmatize gays and lesbians might not REALLY be as truly religious as they claim? True Christians would never hate or stigmatize ANYONE.
"it's pathetic. You are exactly like what you hate, no wonder you're so conflicted.....hatred: Religiophobes are every bit as rabid and spiteful as homophobes. You're exactly the same."
You assume a lot, and do a lot of name-calling and labeling of someone you have never had more than a few seconds of internet conversation with. You'll notice that though we disagree I have not called you names or labelled you in any way. So when you say, "This rhetoric has gotten completely out of control" you may want to look in the mirror.
And yes, if you would like to accuse me of being intolerant of intolerance, you're right.
Sorry Rev Smith but I dont think I live my life as "an agenda". I live my life peacefully,without "jamming it down your throat " as so many like to say. It is my humble opinion that a large percentage that say you live life by God's word are a bunch of grandstanding hate filled fearful hypocrites.
I'll make sure I scoot over in my seat on the bus to Hell..because I'm pretty sure its going to be full of all of the people that spent their lives spreading hate instead of tolerance and understanding of their fellow man. Yes, I agree the Lord will judge us ALL on our actions.
Rev, if you are still on here, don't pay any attention to the Libs, they don't believe in God until they are about to die and start crying Oh God help me.
That's so wrong to say that about anyone.
Louisiana Don: What a chicken crap statement.
La Don...don't you get it. Your posts are so absurd that the community keeps collapsing them. In other words, what you say is either repulsive to common standards or just plain non-sense. Go watch FOX. You'll find fools on there who might agree with you. Or, even better, take that medication that you missed today. It might help.
For all the religious wHacks that spout and spew forth condemnation about homosexuality being an abomination. How bout you spew a bit about the other 79 abominations discussed in the bible.
The list includes everything from how we talk, to how we interact with one another, to how we think, to what we eat and what we wear.
Most modern day humans are abominations. Why?
Because you wear cheap mixed fabric clothing.
According to the bible its not only homosexuals that are abominations.
Its every service man or woman that wears a uniform and just about every televangelist on TV.
How bout all those that like to scream about abominations go do a little looking at their own good book and see how many abominations you did today.
You might be surprised to know you too are an "abominator"
Well, the subject here is Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the subject is not all that other crap. Don't try to change the subject.
Ironic ,LD.. back in post #4 you thew the first stone by referring to the people as "homos"-an obviously negative remark. You've called us "Libs" in the same fashion atleast twice.Then, in post #5 Rev took it to the bible. Now, you're getting it thrown back at you and youre going to say its changing the subject?
Don, you may as well have just put your fingers in your ears and started screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA!!!!" ROFL
O.K. Kelly, sorry I'm all over the map here. Back to the Homo's in the Military.
The subject is indeed DADT. Now please stop trying to impose your religious beliefs on people. The church has no say in this matter, which is a very good thing.
You can choose to be told how to live and what days you should worship, but not everyone lives by a book that was written by man and altered enough times throughout the years so that anything it once was is now just a faded memory.
religion has a place and it is not here. Now follow your own advice and stay on topic please.
The repealing of DADT does not include seeking approval from the church.
Enough about religion, back to the homo's in the military. BTW I'm retire Air Force, so I know a little something about what the military personnel think about it.
You know nothing, LD, except your own hateful bigotry. I was also in the military and couldn't disagree with you more. DO NOT try to impose your own inadequacies on me or any other person.
yo Louisiana Don........... you personify the definition of "ignorance". & I may add......you do it very well.
Bunch of pillow biters,what are you complaining about your not in the military.
LD you sir are an ignorant bigot,when I served in the military only HOMOs went in the Air Force.
Hey La Don, I'm also a retired USAF officer. So, I guess I know a bit about what the military may think about DADT. The active duty officers that I know (heterosexuals) serve with gays and have no problem with doing so. In fact, they serve and socialize with them as equals. So, don't pull your "I know it all" crap on me. I'll throw it right back. Just because you served, doesn't mean you are better than others who served; including those who are gay.
How about staying on topic. It's interesting and instructive to watch the political deal making within the Democratic party, on a bill that they support. Kind of shines a different light on the political process behind the tax cut/unemployment benefit extension agreement, doesn't it? Yes, the system is slow, but I'd rather it take more time and have all sides heard and considered, rather than rushing headlong. Running a nation of 330 million people isn't exactly like ordering a burger in McDonald's drive-through, after all. And we shouldn't expect it to be. TV shows may solve the world's problems in an hour, but that is not reality.
Actually, this story is about a Dem, an Independent (former Dem) and a Repub saying they want the same thing, but wanting different ways of reaching that goal. The best thing to do is to remove the DADT amendment from the DOD Appropriations bill and bring that amendment to the floor as its own independent measure. The same goes for every other NON-DOD Appropriations amendment that has been attached to the bill. If it is not germane to the DOD budget, then it doesn't belong in that appropriations bill. Congress has had over seven months to act on the FY 2011 Budget proposed by the administration and Congress has yet to pass a budget resolution (which is supposed to be done by May 1 I believe), nor have they passed a single appropriations measure in either house. Hell, most of the committees haven't even reported out from the committee their appropriations bills, including their own Legislative Appropriations, which usually get done before the end of the prior fiscal year. How many continuing resolutions will Congress pass before they finally pass the appropriations? Half of the department/agency appropriations for FY 2010 were never passed.
So, then LD.. if you can get through your thought process without your obvious loathing of us Liberal homos, try to explain the "little something " you know about what millitary personnel think about the it all. Obviously, your screen name gives me an idea, but from what I've read overall, the majority of current personnel (with the exception of the Marines) don't have a problem with it. If you have served recently, your insight might be more relevant than if you served back 20 years ago. Remember when blacks and women couldnt serve? Did you agree with that?
When I served there were gay and bi guys in the Air Force, we knew it and didn't care. What we wouldn't have like was the girly fairy boys prancing around in Uniform. That's what we would have had a problem with. I don't care if they are gay, but don't act like that in uniform.
Kelly R, For your information blacks and women have always been able to serve in the military. In fact blacks served in the military during and every since the civil war. Women have been serving for many years in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. DADT is not a civil rights issue no matter how much the gay community want to believe it is. DADT will pass but now is not the time because there are many more serious issues to resolve before the end of this year. DADT has nothing to do with economy, job creation, taxes, or continuing resolution to keep the government operating. It can be put off along with START, cap and trade, Dream Act and other items currently being debated until the new congress is sworn in next year.
In 1977, there were Women and Blacks in the military, in case you didn't know.
Yes, but they were also segregated, which is what some of you are saying needs to be done for the gay soldiers. If you had no problems with the gay and bi airmen when you served, why would you have any more problem with it now. Just because we want DADT repealed and want to be able to serve openly rather than having to lie about our lifestyle does NOT mean that we are going to be "girly, fairy boys prancing around in Uniform." I believe gay soldiers have just as much respect, if not more, for the uniform as the heterosexual members of the services. Why should they have to hide their lifestyle when you don't? What's good for the goose is good for the gander too. Remove your wedding bands, never talk about your spouse/children, girlfriend, etc., never talk about your sexual exploits, post no pictures of your family, send no love notes to your lovers and families, etc.....in other words, everything that you are denying the gay service member needs to also be denied to and by you and your heterosexual friends. That is the issue with DADT.
As far as putting off this vote as "non-essential", it is just as essential as the New START treaty which is very critical to world peace, jobs, the economy, taxes, etc. If Congress was doing their job, we wouldn't need continuing resolutions to keep the government going. They should have been doing that (passing the FY 2011 appropriations measures) all summer instead of wasting our tax dollars and the salaries we pay them on their political campaigns. The GOP especially has done absolutely nothing but block votes in bills that would have helped create jobs and further improved the economy. Tax cuts do NOTHING to improve the economy or jobs creation. Trickle down economics has NEVER worked.
sfcret, you are starkly wrong on your facts. Blacks and women have not "always" served in the military. At least not in the U.S. military. I won't even try to provide you with facts to refute your statement since it is knowledge than a five year old should have. And, your opinion that DADT is not a civil rights issue is blatantly false considering that it specifically prevents people who are gay from being treated as equals with their heterosexual counterpart. My God, any fool should know how many programs are available to non-gays that gays cannot use. But, perhaps your definition of civil rights applies only to white, non-handicapped, Christian, heterosexual men.
TW, Get your facts straight, I stated that blacks have served in the U.S. military since the civil war. Women have served as far back as I can remember and I am 70 yrs old. If you are going to shoot off your month show me the facts. And DADT is not a civil rights issue. It's only a civil rights issue for liberal politicians and gays that want special treatment. How many programs are available to non-gays that gays cannot use? None.
Sen Reid wants "online poker",gays in the military,citizenship for illegals and who cares about the unemployed? May I suggest that it is very wise for the "rich" to hide their $$'s. Quit donating. Do not help those who hate the "giver". It's like the saying goes "hsti for thanks". Our Church "leaders?" today r at least 75% Democrats by the watered down messages they convey. Our poor lack "colored tv sets" but not food because a very high percentage is over weight and feeds pets at home. As you can see, I have lost my empathy for them. I hope you will also, maybe then they will stop begging for a handout from the very people they despise!
Koeman
SIASD
what?
I'm surprised at (& pleased with) Joe Lieberman. I thought he was John McCain's biggest fan and ally. I'm glad he has/had the courage to step up and not follow McCain lockstep. what's with all the debate though? is it a charade so each Senator doesn't offend their specific homophobic constituents? repeal the dam thing and let's move on. let the phobes deal as best they can. perhaps they can find solace in their bible or maybe even in a bottle. there are much more important things that need to be dealt with both here in the US and abroad. DADT.....let's make it history & call it a day.
Yeah, uisiana Dan! You know a "LITTLE" something about what the military personnel think about it. I'm in the military now (Marines!), and I can tell you we DON'T CARE! Let the Gays serve! If they can shoot straight (no pun intended), then I want them to have my back!Â
Tom, I answered that question to Kelly , above.
yo Tom........ I think he majority of us agree with you............ also I think the only "little something" that Louisiana Dan knows anything about is that "lil something" in his levis.
Good for you, Tom. And thank you for your service.
I agreed with Tom, If you look up you will see I knew gays in the Military and didn't care.
Don is just worried about the 'fairies' because those are definitely the type of homosexuals that would be joining the military... Grow up.
What a bunch of squirrely politicans,wanting to vote on this BS when we have massive un-employment and 2 wars going on,they want to pi$$ around with a social issue. If the Democrats wanted this done why did they not do it 6 or 9 months ago? They still have a Majority in the House and Senate ,Democrats can pass any bill they want with a simple majority if they write the bill correctly.
cowardly conservatives always crying, they never stop whing and crying, cowardly conservatives leave the country and do us all a favor
I should say the same thing about you sissy liberals. I think i did.
I'm in the military as well and as far as this goes the Marines DO care about NOT having gays openly serving in their beloved Corp. As for me, I'm in the Army and we don't want them either, we didn't want DADT either, we wanted them GONE before DADT and we want them GONE NOW!!!!!
I wonder why our Marines are so sexually and psychologically insecure, especially compared to all of our allies who allow open service. The Marines sound like fragile pansies - they'll be shocked when they have to work in the civilian world where we don't have a DADT policy.
hornsfan, why don't you leave if you don't like it. As Americans, we do have the freedom to choose and service today is voluntary. But, where are you going to work as a civilian where there are no gays?
It's a mistake that the village people used a sailor as an image of a gay icon. It must be the level of insecurity in hyper masculinity. Otherwise, the Marines are the image of hyper masculine attraction. I can't think of a Marine that isn't gay or at least a little gay. Unfortunately, the really straight ones are standing out as really really insecure. And that, is unsatisfactory conduct. Period.
At no time, straight or gay, is it okay to prance around or act like a complete ass in the military. Horns fan, you are alone on that one.
By we he means I, also you're homophobic if you hadn't realized. Why don't you try talking with one of them and realize that their not all out to get you, shouldn't be too hard for a hardened military person.
Well, horns fan, No one really wants them in the Military that I know, but they are there and always have been. They were there in 1977 1997 and now. I just wouldn't like them prancing around like punks while in uniform. That would make people angry and look terrible for the military.
Don, oooooh my, my vision of the military is of gay people standing on their toes doing ballet while wearing pink tights over their muscular legs and being cheered loudly by heteros who can't take their bulging eyes off of those huge crotches. That would probably bring the enemy to their knees without firing a shot and we could just declare Victory and go home.
That is because they are dead after their 'gay' translator was kicked out before they ventured off into a mine field. That 'military' can't speak up because their 'gay' medic is undergoing a discharge and it's hard to say anything when your lungs are full of blood.
Well, as far as the 'it's a choice' vs. 'it's not a choice' argument, I offer this:
If it were a choice, would guys really choose to have another guy's hairry butt in his face?
C'mon, y'all- get real.
Obviously, because they did.
Alright, smart guy. I was trying to be funny, but as usual I failed.
I do know this. I used to know a guy that was gay. I didn't know it at first, but over time we got to be pretty close friends. Once he 'came out', I couldn't very well tell him to get lost. We remained friends, with the understanding that I wouldn't go into his world and I wouldn't badger him about moving into mine. BUT- I remember him being quite religious and bible-believing. I also remember many times, him crying and sobbing and asking why God made him this way- that he despised himself for being that way, but couldn't help it. Was he lying? I serriously doubt it. We were always openly honest with eachother about everything.
After that, I always took an interest in the 'is it a choice' issue.
I'm thinking not.
But then again, why would I even care, if it's not about ME?