Options

Reid Backs Plan to Repeal DADT

2»

Posts

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    moniker on
  • Options
    RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    RandomEngy on
    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Options
    ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Options
    DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • Options
    deowolfdeowolf is allowed to do that. Traffic.Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Pretty much Article 125 of the UCMJ is gonna have to go.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    Quid on
  • Options
    deowolfdeowolf is allowed to do that. Traffic.Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Man, don't pfffft illegal BJs.

    deowolf on
    [SIGPIC]acocoSig.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    moniker 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.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well having gillibrand on board for this actually isn't bad since she's on the more conservative side of the Dem senators

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

    MKR on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    moniker on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    MKR on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Well of course I want it repealed.

    Oh wait. That other Reid.

    Man that always weirds me out.

    MuddBudd on
    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    MKR on
  • Options
    tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    I see the rocks rolled down from Mount Owympus.

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

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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"

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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

    MKR on
  • Options
    ChanusChanus Harbinger of the Spicy Rooster Apocalypse The Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Rather, I guess it should be read as I spelled it, not as a slur on a speech impediment.

    Chanus on
    Allegedly a voice of reason.
  • Options
    MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    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.

    MKR on
Sign In or Register to comment.