U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/)
-   -   Will Obama end Don't Ask Don't Tell? (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/will-obama-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-191008.html)

Irvine511 12-07-2010 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Ronald (Post 7061076)
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.

BVS 12-07-2010 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Ronald (Post 7061076)
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?

MrsSpringsteen 12-07-2010 09:08 AM

:slant:

Irvine511 12-07-2010 09:27 AM

believe me, it's not the first time i've been propositioned by a married man.

MrsSpringsteen 12-07-2010 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7061189)
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 :shrug:

Bad Ronald 12-07-2010 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7061189)
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:drool:

Irvine511 12-07-2010 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Ronald (Post 7061203)
nah

i'm available honey......

get it while it's hot:drool:



sorry, grandpa. but you can pass my info along to your macho sons.

yolland 12-07-2010 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bad Ronald (Post 7061076)
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.

Irvine511 12-09-2010 03:33 PM

why the fuck is 57 votes not enough? what is the point of the filibuster?

yolland 12-09-2010 05:42 PM

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 (Post 7064433)
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.)

anitram 12-09-2010 09:22 PM

Obama didn't fight for this like he could have.

The Republicans are repugnant on this issue but that is no surprise for a party who thinks that they 1950s were a utopia for everyone (and not just straight, white Christian men).

John McCain is a man without principles who has much to be ashamed of.

BVS 12-09-2010 09:45 PM

I have to say, this one is baffling...:doh:

Irvine511 12-09-2010 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yolland (Post 7064542)
(ETA --

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.)


the filibuster itself might need looking at. historically, it was used sparingly. now?

i've dealt with some anger today from friends who are mostly exasperated with Obama on this, and while i agree that, in retrospect, he should have just left this to the courts and done the unusual-but-not-unprecedented of ordering the DOJ to not defend the appeal in the 9th circuit, i do appreciate the thought that giving the repeal the legitimacy of legislative appeal would have prevented DADT from being reinstated at some point in the future.

it just seems to defy logic that you need to win by 20 votes to even win at all. i understand, yes, that's the rule, and needing 60 votes prevented things like, say, drilling in ANWAR.

it's becoming more and more apparent to me that the courts are the only recourse gay people have. whenever people vote, we feel our minority status so acutely that it's incredibly painful. the courts decided Brown vs. BOE, activist judges and all, and i'm afraid that's the only protection that gay people have. the GOP continues to seek our destruction, and the Democrats will only do enough to distinguish themselves as slightly to the left of that in order to retain votes (and gay money).

i hope that Obama will either drop the DADT appeal in the 9th circuit, or simply step in as Commander In Chief. i understand his concerns about not stepping on toes in the military, but for the love of God, this one is such a no brainer. you have overwhelming support for repeal both across the country and in the military itself. just do something that your base will love after this whole tax cut bru-ha-ha.

and John McCain can go fuck himself on his moving goalposts.

Moonlit_Angel 12-09-2010 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7064777)
the filibuster itself might need looking at. historically, it was used sparingly. now?

Rachel Maddow's been hammering the issue of the abuse of the filibuster on her show a lot over this past year. There are quite a few things our government does/did that may have seemed like good ideas at the time, or still are good ideas in theory, but which desperately need some sort of rules applied to them, some sort of limits. It's just too confusing otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7064777)
i've dealt with some anger today from friends who are mostly exasperated with Obama on this, and while i agree that, in retrospect, he should have just left this to the courts and done the unusual-but-not-unprecedented of ordering the DOJ to not defend the appeal in the 9th circuit, i do appreciate the thought that giving the repeal the legitimacy of legislative appeal would have prevented DADT from being reinstated at some point in the future.

Yes. This is the conundrum that Obama finds himself in.

I'm totally fine with the courts making decisions like this. But when you have situations, like the recent one here in Iowa, where voters are voting out judges for supporting things such as gay rights issues because they're "activist judges" (the horror!), that presents a problem for the courts. How would you suggest we go about getting around that problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7064777)
i understand his concerns about not stepping on toes in the military, but for the love of God, this one is such a no brainer. you have overwhelming support for repeal both across the country and in the military itself. just do something that your base will love after this whole tax cut bru-ha-ha.

Fully agreed on this. That's the thing, he wouldn't BE stepping on very many toes here. I usually refrain from using the "majority rule" argument on an issue because the simple fact that a lot of people support something isn't a strong enough argument to prove the legality/illegality, rightness/wrongness of any issue, but in this case, like you said, the majority of people are for repeal. I do not see exactly who Obama fears he will offend by ending this. Gay people, as well as those who support their rights, have been offended by the appalling discrimination they've been facing for years now. So if the anti-gay rights side gets offended for a bit, well, guess now they'll know how it feels, won't they?

About the only thing I can think of that could perhaps inspire the Democrats and Obama to move more quickly on this issue is some mass push from the public, by way of some big campaign or something. Make it as blatantly clear to them as possible that we are completely okay with this. They can repeal DADT and we'll support them 100%. Hell, if the Republicans see just how many Americans support this idea, some of them may even be inspired to support repeal. Mostly for job security and to look good, probably, sure, but the more support, the better, regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7064777)
and John McCain can go fuck himself on his moving goalposts.

John McCain makes me sad. Somehow the theory of him getting senile doesn't seem like a good enough excuse for his recent behavior anymore. Now he's just coming off like a douche.

Angela

KhanadaRhodes 12-10-2010 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anitram (Post 7064722)
Obama didn't fight for this like he could have.

The Republicans are repugnant on this issue but that is no surprise for a party who thinks that they 1950s were a utopia for everyone (and not just straight, white Christian men).

John McCain is a man without principles who has much to be ashamed of.

this. all of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511 (Post 7064777)
the filibuster itself might need looking at. historically, it was used sparingly. now?

exactly. these days it's just used so anyone who disagrees with something can have a little temper tantrum like they're some petulant child not being allowed a candy bar at the grocery store.

while i can see both sides of this, to me it's one of the most undemocratic things about our "system" - that one person can stand there and cross their arms and prevent any progress being made. like i said i can see both sides where one can argue freedom of speech or what have you, but i disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel (Post 7064807)
Fully agreed on this. That's the thing, he wouldn't BE stepping on very many toes here. I usually refrain from using the "majority rule" argument on an issue because the simple fact that a lot of people support something isn't a strong enough argument to prove the legality/illegality, rightness/wrongness of any issue, but in this case, like you said, the majority of people are for repeal. I do not see exactly who Obama fears he will offend by ending this. Gay people, as well as those who support their rights, have been offended by the appalling discrimination they've been facing for years now. So if the anti-gay rights side gets offended for a bit, well, guess now they'll know how it feels, won't they?

exactly. it's as if obama is afraid of offending anyone or something, that's the only reason i can think of as to why he just keeps rolling over on everything and fighting for nothing. any of the big ticket (or even medium ticket) issues that've come to the table, he just makes some insane compromise that screws over both sides (although the republicans come out better, of course, because of him not fighting for anything) and accomplishes nothing.

obama needs to grow a spine, plain and simple. he needs to start flexing his muscles and acting like a president rather than letting a very vocal minority call the shots on everything.

anitram 12-10-2010 11:32 PM

Here is somebody with principles, acting in the best interest of his nation:

Quote:

A senior aide to David Petraeus, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, is out with a strong statement in support of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), saying that servicemembers who can't adjust to the change should think about leaving the military.

"If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they're going to have to do what's best for their troops and best for the organization and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward -- if that's the way that we have to go," said Command Sergeant Major Marvin Hill in an interview with Roland Martin on Washington Watch, set to air on Sunday.

Moonlit_Angel 12-10-2010 11:36 PM

Couldn't have said it better myself :up:.

Angela

Diemen 12-11-2010 01:46 PM

Can't wait to see how John McCain reacts.

Irvine511 12-14-2010 05:23 PM

Susan Collins (R-ME)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Scott Brown (R-MA)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Mark Kirk (R-IL)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Senate switchboard # is (202) 224-3121.

if you are represented by any of the above, please let them know you support the full repeal of DADT.

(that is, if you do)

Moonlit_Angel 12-14-2010 05:35 PM

Can't contact any of those people, but I'll write the ones from my state. All of them, party lines being irrelevant. Think I'll do that right now, actually.

Angela


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com