› ›
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Reid Backs Plan to Repeal DADT

2»

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    werehippy wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    To back away from pissing too much on my current upper-house representation, what will it take to pass the DADT repeal? Simple majority or two-thirds? Or, the here-to-fore unheard of Fabulous majority?

    I would guess 60 votes from the senate, majority from the house. The 60 would be hard to pick up because of jerk waters like Bayh, don't know if any republican senators are in states where they would have to worry about voting no on legislation assisting gay rights.

    The problem is there really just isn't time for it, according to the traditional way things work. We're already significantly behind where we need to be to get a bill through each house before the recess, and that's considered a must do to have healthcare before the end of October. After which you need to push like hell to get energy before the end of the year. And once we're in an election year it'll either take an act of god or Reid and Obama deciding to play hardball to get anything major or remotely controversial through.

    Repealing DADT isn't quite as voluminous as reforming Health Care or creating a new de facto/jure regulatory agency to oversee pollution. It'll have to work it way through the long slog that gets overlooked in Schoolhouse Rock, but I don't think we've completely missed the window of turning a Bill into a Law.

    tea-1.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    TheFrugalNinja wrote: »
    The dont ask dont tell was implimented for, I honestly belive, more for the soilders protection than anything. When it was implimented people in quite a few states werent entierly accepting of diffrent people and I honestly belive the military stuck to this rule so they wouldnt be harmed if found out.

    Yes, better kick out the gays before someone mistreats them! Maybe they think they can handle themselves and want to give a military career a shot, but we know better.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
    • Agree Awesome
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    override367 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    The question remains: Where is the real Harry Reid? This one seems to have a spine.

    Maybe Broodax is ardently pro-gay?

    One meat vessel is as good as another, I doubt broodax understands discrimination at all.

    hehehe

    meat vessel

    JKKaAGp.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    werehippy wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    deowolf wrote: »
    To back away from pissing too much on my current upper-house representation, what will it take to pass the DADT repeal? Simple majority or two-thirds? Or, the here-to-fore unheard of Fabulous majority?

    I would guess 60 votes from the senate, majority from the house. The 60 would be hard to pick up because of jerk waters like Bayh, don't know if any republican senators are in states where they would have to worry about voting no on legislation assisting gay rights.

    The problem is there really just isn't time for it, according to the traditional way things work. We're already significantly behind where we need to be to get a bill through each house before the recess, and that's considered a must do to have healthcare before the end of October. After which you need to push like hell to get energy before the end of the year. And once we're in an election year it'll either take an act of god or Reid and Obama deciding to play hardball to get anything major or remotely controversial through.

    Repealing DADT isn't quite as voluminous as reforming Health Care or creating a new de facto/jure regulatory agency to oversee pollution. It'll have to work it way through the long slog that gets overlooked in Schoolhouse Rock, but I don't think we've completely missed the window of turning a Bill into a Law.

    While not on the level of Health care reform I think they do need to address some specifics that could be points of contention for reasonable people.

    My current understanding is that there are a large amount of rules in the military about heterosexual relations that are simply ignored. I can't imagine the outrage if they actually rewrote the rules (for hetero- or homo-sexual acts) to accurately reflect that. Having rules that are exactly the same would likely just reflect them being ignored for the hetero crowd but not for the homosexual crowd. Which kinda defeats the purpose.

    "When you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. When you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

    Borderlands 2 PA Xbox Metatag - Bazillion Guns
    • Agree Awesome
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    Pretty much Article 125 of the UCMJ is gonna have to go.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    deowolf wrote: »
    Pretty much Article 125 of the UCMJ is gonna have to go.
    Pfffft.

    So one of the bigger implications of this to me is that with several states now allowing gay marriage, after DADT are the rights going to be immediately extended? Obama fell short on extending full rights to federal employees but the military benefits are almost completely necessary for the spouse's well being.

    spacekungfuman wrote: »
    If that woman's cleavedge made one more person pick the game up off the shelf, it was a net positive for microprose. And to be blunt, if taking her top off could have increased sales enough to get a sequel, I'd endorse it 100000% because I like playing great games.
    • Agree Awesome
  • deowolfdeowolf Registered User regular
    Man, don't pfffft illegal BJs.

    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
    • Agree Awesome
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    TheFrugalNinja wrote: »
    The dont ask dont tell was implimented for, I honestly belive, more for the soilders protection than anything. When it was implimented people in quite a few states werent entierly accepting of diffrent people and I honestly belive the military stuck to this rule so they wouldnt be harmed if found out.

    On another note, lifting it is a good idea but the question is, are the majority of the people in the military going to be accepting of it and are there people there who will help defend them if it gets ugly?

    They are, as is an overwhelming super majority of the population at large.

    I love the "for their protection" argument.


    You do realize they can still not tell anyone, even if we stop kicking them out for telling people, right? Like, if you're about to join and you think "They'd hate me if they knew I was gay" you can just... not mention it.

    Right now, they're in danger. They have no recourse if found out and harassed. Not if they want to keep their job. They get all the danger plus extra danger. I don't understand how any thinking being can look at that and call it keeping someone safe.

    steam_sig.png
    http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
    • Agree Awesome
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Well having gillibrand on board for this actually isn't bad since she's on the more conservative side of the Dem senators

    SC2 : nexuscrawler.381
    • Agree Awesome
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    you're a blog
    • Agree Awesome
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Given the 70% support amongst the electorate I'm not seeing how this is a Sisyphean task.

    tea-1.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Given the 70% support amongst the electorate I'm not seeing how this is a Sisyphean task.

    I was referring to his newly discovered balls rather than Sisyphus's boulder, but I can see how you got that from the joke.

    you're a blog
    • Agree Awesome
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Registered User regular
    nexuscrawler wrote: »
    Well having gillibrand on board for this actually isn't bad since she's on the more conservative side of the Dem senators

    I think she's starting/trying not to be.

    Spoiler:
    • Agree Awesome
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Well of course I want it repealed.

    Oh wait. That other Reid.

    Man that always weirds me out.

    r2lsig.jpg
    • Agree Awesome
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Given the 70% support amongst the electorate I'm not seeing how this is a Sisyphean task.

    I was referring to his newly discovered balls rather than Sisyphus's boulder, but I can see how you got that from the joke.

    I thought Sisyphus was in Hades.

    • Agree Awesome
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    KalTorak wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Given the 70% support amongst the electorate I'm not seeing how this is a Sisyphean task.

    I was referring to his newly discovered balls rather than Sisyphus's boulder, but I can see how you got that from the joke.

    I thought Sisyphus was in Hades.

    I think we were working with a generalized form of the myth to allow the link to Mount Olympus.

    you're a blog
    • Agree Awesome
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Was that a combination Harry Reid's balls/Barney Frank speech impediment joke?

    steam_sig.png
    • Agree Awesome
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Was that a combination Harry Reid's balls/Barney Frank speech impediment joke?

    I chuckled.

    I think he meant to spell it "O-Wimp-Us"

    Feck, shite, feck, shite, feck, shite, arse!
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Chanus take my quote out of your signature anyway. It's out of context and makes people think I'm afraid or hate vaginas!
    • Agree Awesome
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    Was that a combination Harry Reid's balls/Barney Frank speech impediment joke?

    I chuckled.

    I think he meant to spell it "O-Wimp-Us"

    Mount Olympus is power and assertiveness. Mount Owympus fears Mount Olympus. And I spelled it as I meant. :P

    you're a blog
    • Agree Awesome
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    Rather, I guess it should be read as I spelled it, not as a slur on a speech impediment.

    Feck, shite, feck, shite, feck, shite, arse!
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Chanus take my quote out of your signature anyway. It's out of context and makes people think I'm afraid or hate vaginas!
    • Agree Awesome
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Rather, I guess it should be read as I spelled it, not as a slur on a speech impediment.

    I'm not even sure where Frank comes in here.

    you're a blog
    • Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.
› ›