1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Republicans block repeal of DADT

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Emberstone, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101209/ap_on_go_co/us_gays_in_military
     
  2. Zontar

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Binghampton, NY
    Well, at least I still got a way out of the draft :lol:

    That's gonna go away. The Reps are gonna put up a fight, but it's as good as gone.
     
  3. maverick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Alabama *cue banjos*
    "You don't have to be straight to be in the military. You just have to be able to shoot straight." - Sen. Barry Goldwater
     
  4. crimsonarcher

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2007
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ
    Not all GOP voted Nay though- Susan Collins broke with party lines and voted for repeal.
     
  5. Adam

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    0
    :frowning2:
    Well probably will happen within the next few years, just sad for all those that want back in that still have to wait.
     
  6. Lady Gaga

    Lady Gaga Guest

    I made a pledge to myself last year, that if DADT wasn't repealed by December 2010, I would no longer stand during the pledge.

    But, my homeroom teacher is a veteran. So I have to stand out of respect. I don't have to, but I don't feel like taking such a chance as to disrespect my teacher on a large level.
     
  7. Kevin42

    Kevin42 Guest

    Tonight we may have one last hope though: Lieberman and Collins are planning on introducing a free-standing bill to repeal DADT tonight and Lieberman says he has 60 votes and that there will be a vote on it before the year ends.
     
  8. Eric

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    1
    I'm amazed that a majority vote isn't enough to pass something. It's just... Wow.
     
  9. mydogstewie

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Lady Gaga

    Lady Gaga Guest

    That's the entire idea behind the current backwards Republican idea.

    I think that filibusterering is ultimately abused now, and should be removed.

    A majority is a majority. Nothing should make that change.
     
  11. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    The Filibuster rule has been in place in The Senate since the 1800's...I don't see it changing anytime soon...nor do I think it should.
     
  12. Lady Gaga

    Lady Gaga Guest

    I don't see why that makes it okay, just because it's old that doesn't make it okay. And of course you don't think it should, it benefits your party. The next time democrats are in the same position the republicans are in now, which is inevitable, they will filibuster everything too, and you will be saying the exact opposite of what you just did.

    Also, just so you don't go "so will you!" I think it is just as unfair for democrats the same to republicans. If republicans have a majority vote for one of their bills, it should be passed. It shouldn't be pussy-smacked (new word for fillbustering, because it's a pussy-whiny-baby move.)
     
  13. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference

    I don't have to say "You will too" because they already did when Bill Frist was the Majority Leader. The Senate has never been majority rules...it has always been "super majority" rules.
     
  14. Lady Gaga

    Lady Gaga Guest

    That's a stupid policy. Majority wins, even if just by one.
     
  15. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    Well...that's life. That is how The Senate operates...always has and always will.
     
  16. TheRoof

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NY
    those stupid republican crones...
     
  17. Lexington

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    11,409
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Colorado
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    >>>I'm amazed that a majority vote isn't enough to pass something. It's just... Wow.

    Do a bit of research on something called "the tyranny of the majority". You'll probably change your mind pretty quick. These rules aren't arbitrary. Think about it - if the senate is 51-49, it can change all the laws in one direction, and then, if the other side wins two seats a year later, it can switch everything back. Insisting on a super-majority keeps things on a more even keel.

    Lex
     
  18. Eric

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,551
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    1
    I undertand that but we're talking about a difference of 17 votes. It's not a narrow gap by any means, and how often does a party lose even half of those senate seats in any given election? I understand the need for a "super-majority" kind of system to avoid needless spending but it just seems like even more of a waste to have a bill get the support of a large majority of senators and still not pass.
     
  19. Sicsemper79

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Roanoke VA
    The fact is that until very recently neither party was remotely interested in ending DADT. This little push was bound to fail from the beginning. If Obama had any balls whatsoever (he doesnt) he would have put out an executive order stopping its enforcement. And I don't want to hear about how congress passed the law so the military has to follow it. Under the constitution the Commander in Chief is the president. He has the power the stop this... and he refuses. Hell he has the same stance on gay marriage as John McCain. For the life of me I can't figure why the gay community has any support for him whatsoever. The man has no convictions and no spine. The courts are going to have to put an end to this crap...
     
  20. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    The only real problem with the filibuster right now is that it used to be a last resort. it was rare to see more than 1 fillibuster a a year, with most years not having any.

    The way it is being used now though is rediculous. in the last two years, it has been used more times than in the hundreds of years that came before. the vast majority of times being used were by republicans, and many of those times were to prevent any progress to be made to fix the faults in the systems that led to economic ruin.

    Filibuster has its uses... but the way it is being used today does not fall in line. it is allowing the minority to bring the country to a utter halt until they get everything they want. Rather than even allow bills to go to the floor for debate, republicans are filibustering immediatly to prevent debate even happening on the floor, where changes could be made to bring compromise. few things are getting done because the filibuster has been abused so egregiously in the last two years, ironicly by the party that bares the greatest responciblity for this countrys economic and social woes.