Will Obama end Don't Ask Don't Tell? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-04-2010, 03:24 PM   #136
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 45
Local Time: 08:48 PM
i don't really have a problem with gays in the military...however most of the military builds on the old foundations of machoism (as well they should, i have 2 sons in the USMC, one currently in Afghanistan)

it is unfortunate this mindset is fostered, i have the utmost respect for anyone who chooses to serve their country, especially in this time of danger and sacrafice......and yet i can see the disruption and problems that could be created at this, a critical time for many
__________________

__________________
Bad Ronald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010, 04:53 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
Alongside campaign finance reform and term limits, another issue we desperately need to tackle is this incessant need to tack one issue onto bills for something else entirely. First the talk of possibly putting the extension of unemployment benefits onto any legislation that also will extend the tax cuts, now this. It's a trap method, and it's a horrible way to get legislation passed. Why can't the issues be dealt with separately?

Angela
Scott Brown is perfectly just to conclude that he won't vote for one issue unless another one is dealt with.

And I am free to judge him for his willingness to continue a policy that he agrees harms the American military, unless the wealthiest Americans have their taxes cut.

Some Democrats apparently believe that in a recession, we shouldn't allow the wealthiest Americans to get massive tax cuts unless the neediest unemployed Americans get relief, too. Some also believe we shouldn't blow up the deficit/debt by extending the Bush tax cuts; without also extracting concessions from Republicans that they won't hold raising the debt ceiling hostage in a few months.

Do you think the problem is with the principle of logrolling, or with which issues certain Senators choose to draw the line on? This Democratic logrolling is aimed at extracting ideological consistency from Republicans. If we end up rewarding the wealthiest, hurting the neediest, and indiscriminately slash government spending by tackling the tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and debt ceiling independently of one another, one should probably stop and consider whether this is actually a worthy principle in the first place.

Of course, I don't know your politics, so you might prefer some of those things.
__________________

__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 04:15 AM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,258
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Scott Brown is perfectly just to conclude that he won't vote for one issue unless another one is dealt with.

And I am free to judge him for his willingness to continue a policy that he agrees harms the American military, unless the wealthiest Americans have their taxes cut.

Some Democrats apparently believe that in a recession, we shouldn't allow the wealthiest Americans to get massive tax cuts unless the neediest unemployed Americans get relief, too. Some also believe we shouldn't blow up the deficit/debt by extending the Bush tax cuts; without also extracting concessions from Republicans that they won't hold raising the debt ceiling hostage in a few months.
This is pretty much how I feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
Do you think the problem is with the principle of logrolling, or with which issues certain Senators choose to draw the line on? This Democratic logrolling is aimed at extracting ideological consistency from Republicans. If we end up rewarding the wealthiest, hurting the neediest, and indiscriminately slash government spending by tackling the tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and debt ceiling independently of one another, one should probably stop and consider whether this is actually a worthy principle in the first place.

Of course, I don't know your politics, so you might prefer some of those things.
Heh, well, hey, feel free to take a glance around at some of the threads here, then . I'd personally say it's the principle itself. I'm not fond of the idea of using certain issues as part of a game to get what you want from the other side. Like unemployment benefits, how they might get added on to a tax cut extension bill so that the Republicans will be more willing to allow the benefits to extend if it means they'll get their tax cut like they wanted. I hate this because of the fact that it's people's unemployment on the line, and I think it sucks that people's struggles are being used as bait and ploys to let people get what they want. Especially when it means letting the rich get richer (if the Democrats had any backbone they'd say that if the Republicans want people to stop staying on unemployment, further draining the economy, they'd better get their rich buddies to start investing their money into creating jobs here in the U.S., or paying more in taxes so that that money can go into the government and they'll have enough to afford to provide help to those who truly need it. Those are their only choices; should they not comply, then the Democrats will push forward without them), and especially since the Republicans, once they get what they want, will probably find some other reason to cut the benefits down the line again, and we'll have to go through this whole mess again.

And then of course that's something to consider when it comes to attack ads: "Candidate X voted to cut spending for our military". Did they really? Or did they vote for a bill that had something else they wanted, and some defense spending thing was tacked on to it, so by voting for the first part, they unfortunately inadvertently wound up supporting the part that cut the military stuff. If that makes any sense.

I understand the motivation behind such tactics, and sometimes, it can force people to consider what they're voting for or against. But I just hate how it's constantly coming off as a blackmail of sorts, or a, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". It doesn't seem like this tactic does anything for the American people at large, it's just another example of the give and take between the politicians in Washington. The average citizen doesn't have time to sit here and watch politicians play their silly games. They can't afford it.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 01:41 AM   #139
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Ronald View Post
i don't really have a problem with gays in the military...however most of the military builds on the old foundations of machoism (as well they should, i have 2 sons in the USMC, one currently in Afghanistan)

you should come out with me on a Friday evening in DC, and i'll introduce you to some very macho gay guys who've been marines.

Quote:
“We Have A Gay Guy. He’s Big, He’s Mean, And He Kills Lots Of Bad Guys. No One Cared That He Was Gay.”

Gays should be able to serve openly says new report

Quote:
.and yet i can see the disruption and problems that could be created at this, a critical time for many

the overwhelming majority of the military doesn't. perhaps they're tougher than you give them credit for. especially in a time of war. everyone's got something else to worry about. this is the best time for it.

and what no one seems to understand is that many gay soldiers will choose to remain closeted. what this does is remove the knife from their backs whereby someone won't be discharged because he writes a letter to his partner from the field.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 08:39 AM   #140
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 45
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you should come out with me on a Friday evening in DC, and i'll introduce you to some very macho gay guys who've been marines
well i didn't say there weren't macho gay guys.....i said the marine base philosophy doesn't really allow for the acceptance of it.....once again......i have two sons in the marines....one in afghanistan even as we speak...so i get the program

that being said.....if you lure me to the "ramrod' for drinks you're buyin

and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me
__________________
Bad Ronald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 09:40 AM   #141
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Ronald View Post
and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me


wow, really? you'd allow me the privilege of putting that big, macho, marine-making cock in my mouth?

i have to say, though, drinking rum and cokes is pretty faggy. big turn off.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 10:00 AM   #142
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Ronald View Post
that being said.....if you lure me to the "ramrod' for drinks you're buyin

and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me
Has anyone told you lately how awesome you are?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 10:08 AM   #143
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 08:48 PM
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 10:27 AM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:48 PM
believe me, it's not the first time i've been propositioned by a married man.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 10:33 AM   #145
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
believe me, it's not the first time i've been propositioned by a married man.
Don't ask, don't tell

I think if anyone raises their sons in certain ways they would have no problem with anyone being openly gay and serving alongside them. Just my opinion
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 10:37 AM   #146
The Fly
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 45
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
believe me, it's not the first time i've been propositioned by a married man.
nah

i'm available honey......

get it while it's hot
__________________
Bad Ronald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 10:41 AM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Ronald View Post
nah

i'm available honey......

get it while it's hot


sorry, grandpa. but you can pass my info along to your macho sons.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2010, 11:09 AM   #148
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Ronald View Post
that being said.....if you lure me to the "ramrod' for drinks you're buyin

and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me
This and everything that followed from it was seriously inappropriate.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 04:33 PM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:48 PM
why the fuck is 57 votes not enough? what is the point of the filibuster?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 06:42 PM   #150
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:48 AM
From the outside, it looks as if Reid made a major strategic mistake going for cloture. But maybe he knows something about Brown, Murkowski and Lugar's trustworthiness on this issue that I don't.

Now Lieberman is saying that he and Collins will introduce a free-standing DADT repeal measure, that it's not too late to get cloture for that. The clock is really running out though.

(ETA --
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why the fuck is 57 votes not enough? what is the point of the filibuster?
Not sure if you're expressing bewilderment or frustration, but...the filibuster isn't DADT-specific, it's an extension of the no-on-everything-til-the-tax-cuts-clear-the-Senate thing. And 57 isn't enough because to override a filibuster, i.e. cloture, you need three-fifths, i.e. 60. Brown, Murkowski and Lugar had all publically indicated support for DADT repeal, so presumably they voted against cloture out of support for the filibuster. Collins and Reid had had a tentative agreement that debate on the defense bill including DADT might proceed anyway within certain parameters, but apparently Reid decided that wasn't going to work.)
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com