Can we just, like, fire everyone in Congress?

[Tornado]

Now, I've never been particularly sure where to come down on Don't Ask Don't Tell, but thankfully it doesn't actually matter for this:

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked legislation that would have repealed the law banning gays from serving openly in the military. The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

With the 56-43 vote, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation. It also would have authorized $726 billion in defense spending including a pay raise for troops.

Senate Democrats attached the repeal provision to the defense bill in the hopes that Republicans would hesitate to vote against legislation that included popular defense programs. But GOP legislators opposed the bill anyway, thwarting a key part of the Democrats' legislative agenda.

Now, gay rights advocates say they worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in the upcoming elections this fall, repealing the ban could prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.

"The whole thing is a political train wreck," said Richard Socarides, a former White House adviser on gay rights during the Clinton administration.

Socarides said President Barack Obama "badly miscalculated" the Pentagon's support for repeal, while Democrats made only a "token effort" to advance the bill.

"If it was a priority for the Democratic leadership, they would get a clean vote on this," he said.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date if he wants.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins agreed with her GOP colleagues that Republicans weren't given sufficient chance to offer amendments.

Reid allowed Republicans the opportunity to offer only one amendment to address GOP objections on the military's policy on gays.

Collins said she planned to vote against advancing the bill unless Democrats agreed to extend debate so that her colleagues could weigh in on other issues.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the senator would be willing to allow more debate on the bill after the November elections.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures," Manley said. "It's about a GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people."

An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights' groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.

Linky.

Maybe it is just me, but I don't see this bill as being drawn up with the intent of actually doing anything. It seems to me based on the article that the Democrats wrote up a bill that they knew wasn't going to pass, then they attached part of the defense budget to it so Republicans wouldn't go against it. That way, since they knew Republicans would be against it anyways, when attack ads begin in full next month, Democrats will now be able to run various "Republican Senator X hates gays and he hates our troops" ads. Finally, to put the ace in the hole, Reid purposely voted against it so it will come up again during the next Congressional cycle.

Basically, it sounds like the Democrats used a vaguely hot-button issue (but not hot button enough to cause controversy for them) purely to get on the public mindset as being the "good guys," and with absolutely no regard towards what that issue actually was or what people had at stake in it. I would go so far as to say that the Democrats wanted the bill to fail, because if Republicans had voted for this bill than the Democrats would have been been screwed.


Quite frankly, I find using such an issue to purely as a way to extort some more Senate seats absolutely abhorrent.

 

[Joel]

I find the whole situation absolutely ridiculous.


"Land of the free*"

Add in the political agenda side of it, and it just puts me over the edge.
















*unless you're a fag.

 

[DK]

It shouldn't matter if someone's gay. If they want to serve in the military, let them, it's not like they're going to have sex with each other while they're meant to be fighting the enemy.

 

[FoolKiller]

It shouldn't matter if someone's gay. If they want to serve in the military, let them, it's not like they're going to have sex with each other while they're meant to be fighting the enemy.

Well, no more than the straight male and female members of the service.



The thing is with this topic Democrats have been ignoring it until now, just before an election. There have been multiple cases of groups publicly asking President Obama about his promise to eliminate don't ask don't tell. Now they try to do something, knowing it will be a political game and not a serious issue?

Shame on Democrats who are using gay rights in this way and shame on Republicans who are just prejudiced enough to give Democrats that opening.

 

[Duke]

Shame on all of them. Frankly, with rare exceptions, anybody who votes for a candidate with either R or D after their names is just prolonging the agony.

 

[Danoff]

It's disgusting to me that this is where they're spending their efforts. We have real problems, and this is not one of them.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

It's disgusting to me that this is where they're spending their efforts. We have real problems, and this is not one of them.

Do you mean gay rights is not important for our country? Although I have never chosen sides, I have to call Congress a couple of blockheads here because it seems that in America, it's the "our way" policy. The people have no rights to change the country anymore. We think we live in a free nation, but it's controlled by these idiots. I just have to say, is it a big deal to allow homosexuality in the Armed Forces? How are they going to stop a couple from seeing each other? It's pure blasphemy.

 

[stumpydino]

well I guess the Republicans tactic is almost working - to oppose everything, waste time whining then complain nothing gets done.
this all feels very petty, no doubt frustrating for those that finally vote in a better party only to face such inept opposition.

 

[Tornado]

I can't help but think that some of you are missing the point...

 

[Duke]

well I guess the Republicans tactic is almost working - to oppose everything, waste time whining then complain nothing gets done.
this all feels very petty, no doubt frustrating for those that finally vote in a better party only to face such inept opposition.

You mean, pretty much exactly like the Democrats did whenever there was a Republican in the White House or red majority in the legislature? Yeah.

 

[Joey D]

Frankly, with rare exceptions, anybody who votes for a candidate with either R or D after their names is just prolonging the agony.

Like any politicians from any other political party is going to do anything different. Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party, The US Communist Party, whatever they are all going to be corrupted in some way.

 

[Azuremen]

Like any politicians from any other political party is going to do anything different. Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party, The US Communist Party, whatever they are all going to be corrupted in some way.

The Corruption isn't so much the issue as the constant bi-partisan nature of them just trying to beat each other rather than focusing on, I dunno, running the government.

Or you can juts move to the UK and have no rights. Up to you, if you feel the US is so corrupt.

 

[Joey D]

The Corruption isn't so much the issue as the constant bi-partisan nature of them just trying to beat each other rather than focusing on, I dunno, running the government.

Or you can juts move to the UK and have no rights. Up to you, if you feel the US is so corrupt.

Then you're just going to have tri-partisanship or quad-partisanship and a whole giant cluster of people arguing over who's more right.

And what in the hell does moving to the UK have to do anything? The US is corrupt but it's no different then anywhere else in the world that I've seen.

 

[Danoff]

Do you mean gay rights is not important for our country?

No, I mean the right for gays to be "out" in the military is not important for our country. Note that this is coming from someone who has a close gay friend in the military and a sibling who was gay in the military.

Like any politicians from any other political party is going to do anything different. Libertarians, Green Party, Constitution Party, The US Communist Party, whatever they are all going to be corrupted in some way.

I'm invisible to you of course, but for the sake of people I'm not invisible to I'll say that it greatly helps when the party is based on a principle. The only principle left to the Deomcrapublicans is the desire to stay in office.

 

[Keef]

I'm invisible to you of course, but for the sake of people I'm not invisible to I'll say that it greatly helps when the party is based on a principle. The only principle left to the Deomcrapublicans is the desire to stay in office.

For the sake of those you are invisible to, I'll quote you so you're not invisible anymore. The big majority of them are basically just about staying in office as you say. I assume it's for the power, not the money, because they don't make much in the scheme of things. Or maybe none of them are clever enough to be in an executive position so these are the highest paying jobs they could find that require a nothing more than a certificate in blabbering incessantly, and a secretary. With rare exceptions of course.

It would be better if people with completely twisted principles ran for office instead of people with none at all. At least then you'd know who not to vote for.

 

[Joey D]

A political party based on principals.

 

[Keef]

A political party based on principals.

Let's narrow it down even further and say people with principles instead of parties. It's much easier to get one person to cooperate with himself than it is a lot of them to cooperate with each other.

 

[Joey D]

Let's narrow it down even further and say people with principles instead of parties. It's much easier to get one person to cooperate with himself than it is a lot of them to cooperate with each other.

When you get elected I think you throw any form of principals out the window. You may start with a good solid plan to do some really excellent stuff in this country, but power does corrupt and it's been shown time and time again the only way to keep your job in a political role is to make those who wield power and money happy.

Even then, not everyone agrees on principals either. My principals are completely different then someone else's so what I might think is good, someone else might not.

 

[Dotini]

Here are the first and best principles to go by:
1) Stay out of war.
2) Stay out of debt.

 

[Keef]

When you get elected I think you throw any form of principals out the window. You may start with a good solid plan to do some really excellent stuff in this country, but power does corrupt and it's been shown time and time again the only way to keep your job in a political role is to make those who wield power and money happy.

That rare exception Duke mentioned can be seen in Ron Paul, especially. He's been arguing about the actual problems in DC now for quite a while, instead of arguing the politics of these problems like everyone else does. If we could find more people who can spell "money" and "liberty" into office things would be better in the Capitol.

Even then, not everyone agrees on principals either. My principals are completely different then someone else's so what I might think is good, someone else might not.

Many of these politicians can hardly consider these issues on the same level as me, and if they are it's because somebody wrote their speech for them. They don't make consistent decisions and arguments because they don't even know why they're arguing about these things. They don't bother to look at the foundations of problems. GM is out of money? Give them more money? No, it's a lot deeper than that. A lot of these idiots honestly cannot comprehend that as well as a high school student who's read a Ron Paul book or two. Many of these issues have occurred before in human history and all it takes to understand them is a very detailed look back. Things have been proven. Not everything, but some things. And if a person disagrees with something that has been proven (like the whole sound money deal) then that person is just plain wrong, "principles" aside.

 

[Joey D]

That rare exception Duke mentioned can be seen in Ron Paul, especially. He's been arguing about the actual problems in DC now for quite a while, instead of arguing the politics of these problems like everyone else does. If we could find more people who can spell "money" and "liberty" into office things would be better in the Capitol.

I don't agree with Ron Paul's principals at all. I might have been brainwashed by all the rhetoric surrounding him during the 2008 campaign, but when I explored what really matters to me I found that I didn't agree with him at all. I wouldn't vote for anyone that shares the same ideals as him either, but that's the beauty of America isn't it? We vote for who we want to.

And who's to say power wouldn't corrupt a politician like that, because track records show that he would probably fall into it.

Many of these politicians can hardly consider these issues on the same level as me, and if they are it's because somebody wrote their speech for them. They don't make consistent decisions and arguments because they don't even know why they're arguing about these things. They don't bother to look at the foundations of problems. GM is out of money? Give them more money? No, it's a lot deeper than that. A lot of these idiots honestly cannot comprehend that as well as a high school student who's read a Ron Paul book or two.

All politicians are one-tracked minded, even Ron Paul. Sure you have a great idea that will restore liberty and justice to America, but how many people are you going to screw over in the process to get there that have depended on X for so many years.

 

[Danoff]

When someone is depending on injustice, it isn't wrong to take that away from them.

If we adhere to a limited government (as prescribed by our government's charter), we can make it so that there is no opportunity to be corrupted politically. The less government does, the less potential there is for corruption. But when the government decides to pass sweeping legislation (eg: on something like children's toys), we find over and over that corruption leaks into the process so that some interested party (eg: Matel) is the major beneficiary of the legislation.

The solution is not to throw your hands up and say it's impossible and we must live with it. The solution is to get the government out of the business of regulating things that it has no business regulating.

 

[Dotini]

I don't agree with Ron Paul's principals at all.

Ron Paul first and foremost believes in staying out of war and out of debt. These are true and unbeatable principles. If you don't believe me, ask Thomas Jefferson or Jesus Christ.

Ron Paul also has some other, lesser principles that are easy to disagree with and don't matter anywhere near so much. For instance, he is against abortion. This is understandable in his case, because he has personally delivered several thousand babies, and is undoubtedly partial in the matter.

Just exactly what don't you like about Ron Paul's principles, Joey?

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

Just exactly what don't you like about Ron Paul's principles, Joey?

He subscribes to many Libertarian ideals, which I don't agree with because I think they only work in theory instead of in practice. They might be great, but as I said, instituting them could very well screw a huge portion of the population which doesn't solve anything.

Like I said, I drank the Libertarian Kool-aid and instead of thinking for myself I let rhetoric think for me which was bad. I freely admit that was a bad thing to do. One should stick with their convictions.

 

[Dotini]

Libertarian ideals...could very well screw a huge portion of the population which doesn't solve anything.

I agree that paying off government and private debt will involve much suffering and anguish. It may be bitter medicine, but we are sick and just have to suffer for awhile. No biggy, we'll get over it.

Yours,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

I agree that paying off government and private debt will involve much suffering and anguish. It may be bitter medicine, but we are sick and just have to suffer for awhile. No biggy, we'll get over it.

Yours,
Dotini

And this is exactly what I despise about Libertarian ideals, it's no biggy to ruin tens, if not hundreds of thousands of lives? Take any government program and completely dissolve it and you just really messed with the lives a bunch of people who counted on that program.

I'm all for reform to make sure only the people who need a program are able to access it, but screwing over so many? I don't want anyone in power like that. And I don't believe giving back these "rights" is the best for everyone. Nothing has convinced me of that.

 

[Dotini]

And this is exactly what I despise about Libertarian ideals, it's no biggy to ruin tens, if not hundreds of thousands of lives? Take any government program and completely dissolve it and you just really messed with the lives a bunch of people who counted on that program.

I'm all for reform to make sure only the people who need a program are able to access it, but screwing over so many? I don't want anyone in power like that. And I don't believe giving back these "rights" is the best for everyone. Nothing has convinced me of that.

Millions of lives are already ruined! You want to dig us deeper into the hole with same snake oil that got us into it? Incidentally, I may be somewhat prone to pithy statements, but Dr. Paul actually advocates administering the remedy slowly and carefully.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

Millions of lives are already ruined! You want to dig us deeper into the hole with same snake oil that got us into it? Incidentally, I may be somewhat prone to pithy statements, but Dr. Paul actually advocates administering the remedy slowly and carefully.

Respectfully,
Dotini

I disagree, I think disbanding these programs is putting us deeper into the hole because you'll be left with a large amount of people who suddenly have nothing*. I believe you need social programs in the government and I believe some socialism is a good thing. Having a completely hands off government will only lead to having corporations slipping in and taking advantage of people, in my opinion. There needs to be some control out there.

*I know realistically nothing would happen over night.

 

[Danoff]

I disagree, I think disbanding these programs is putting us deeper into the hole because you'll be left with a large amount of people who suddenly have nothing*.

I'm surprised he thinks anyone here is advocating shutting anything off "suddenly".

Having a completely hands off government will only lead to having corporations slipping in and taking advantage of people, in my opinion. There needs to be some control out there.

...and here is the fundamental lack of understanding of capitalism, which does have inherent controls against the evil corporations.

 

[Keef]

I'm surprised he thinks anyone here is advocating shutting anything off "suddenly".



...and here is the fundamental lack of understanding of capitalism, which does have inherent controls against the evil corporations.

Like customers not being completely retarded and deciding to shop somewhere else, leaving said evil corporation with no customers. And out of business.