More GOP and social issues
Can’t stop stimulus or Obamacare but you can sure step up to the plate when someone wants to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 am
Gee, and here I thought they needed 41 Senate votes to stop Obamacare, but they only had 40. Truth ain’t so snarky, huh?
September 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 am
Vote the bumbs out, indeed! Can you say: “Shovel ready voters”?
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 am
The hypocrisy is galling. If Democrats obstructed a defense bill because they objected to something social policy related inserted in the bill, the outrage machine over at Fox would have 24×7 coverage of how they hate the troops and want them to die and hate America, and the average Uncle reader would be losing their shit screaming apoplectic vitriol about it.
But if you’re doing it cause you want to protect phobic people in the military who probably should just get the fuck over it and get on with their jobs…well that’s cool.
Why we haven’t been able to replace the GOP with the Libertarian Party escapes me, but it’s probably a big part of why this country is fucked.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 am
Sorry Unc, but the Stupid Party doesn’t have enough votes to stop anything in Congress. Anything blocked in this Congress is being blocked by moderate Democrats!
But the MSM will never admit to that, will they?
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 am
Bruiser–if there were even a few right minded Repuglicans not toeing the wingnut line, you’d see those middle of the road Dems getting into line.
Since they’re lock stock in line with the moral majority agenda, you can’t pin this one on a handful of Dems who took the same view they did.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 am
Oh, look, a blogger making crap up about Republicans. I am shocked.
The Democrats blocked this. Democrats fear the gay cooties? No, doesn’t fit the narrative.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 am
Yeah! Let’s hear it for unisex showers and barracks! And finally, my buddies who stayed in the military will be able to grow their hair long, and kids out of high school will be able to have a cool, surfer haircut, as long as they say it’s necessary to maintain their appearance and attract other males. Just as long as they can wear it in a bun, that is.
Also, makeup and piercings for everyone! We had a Sgt. that got NJP’d down to Cpl. because his nipples were pierced. I didn’t like the guy, but I thought that was B.S. But now, all you have to do is say “I have these piercings because it identifies me as homosexual/bisexual/whateverexual, so I have a right to have them.”
Also, female members of the Armed Forces have different fitness requirements as males, so I wonder if the effeminate homosexual males will be held to the female standards, and the butch lesbians will be held to the male standards? It’s only fair.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:27 am
Of course, repealing DADT does nothing for homosexuals. It just reverts to the previous military policy. Congress would actually have to state that homosexuals should be allowed to serve and remove Article 125: Sodomy from the UCMJ.
The Republicans did have Democratic help on this one. Would the change enhance military readiness? If not, why do it? Yes, I know that gays and lesbians serve. That’s why I support DADT.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
Bruiser,
Democrats, nominally, have 59 members who caucus with them…you need 60 to move a bill to the floor for a vote. So, yes, Republicans can block forward progress on legislation, and in many situations have.
2 Democrats (3 if you count Reid, but his vote was procedural) voted with a unified block of Republicans against this bill, both are from Arkansas.
Did the Democrats fail on this by not having a unified caucus? Sure, but even if they had they’d still have needed to pick off at least one Republican just to be able to debate the freaking thing.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
(hit submit too soon)
Until something better comes along, where Congress debates some common sense ideas and puts some work into it, this is the best deal that the military can use.
September 22nd, 2010 at 10:55 am
Given your record on that accusation, i consider it a compliment.
September 22nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
Don’t forget this also stopped the AMNESTY/DREAM act that would have enabled lots of undocumented VOTERS to register for the upcoming election.
September 22nd, 2010 at 11:15 am
Fiftycal,
True, if by “enabled lots of undocumented VOTERS to register for the upcoming election” you mean the DREAM act would allow the children of undocumented immigrants to apply for a 6 year conditional temporary residency followed by permanent residency if those qualifications are met, which would then allow them to apply for citizenship that would then enable them to vote in “an upcoming election” somewhere in the year 2016 or greater.
September 22nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Sigh! This issue was made for Sound Bites to further divide the Electorate. Now the Dems can Propagandize “SEE! It’s the Evil Homophobic Republicans that are Preventing You from getting your Ass shot off in Afghanistan!”. While the Repubs will Propagandize “SEE! WE stopped those Godless Sodomites from Raping Your Son while he’s getting his Ass shot off in Afghanistan!” Just More of the Same in Congress. I served with Gays in the Military back in the 70’s and 80’s, and as far as I can see, we still Won the Cold War, Grenada, First Gulf War, Panama, etc. Also, do you think the Theater Commander in Afghanistan won’t mount a Joint U.S.-Nato Op against the Taliban just because some of the European Troops are Gay? I’m with Cargosquid. Let them come out of the Closet and Serve, I say. After all, Ma Deuce doesn’t care what the Gender of the Trigger Finger is when she is called to action. Besides, how many Hundreds of Thousands of Gay/ Lesbian/Transexuals are storming the Recruiting Centers to sign up, anyway?
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm
The GOP has a single, overpowering issue for the November elections: the economy and the accompanying national indebtedness.
They are badly diluting their strength, they are falling into the (D)onks Cloward-Piven strategy, and it’s looking like the early expectations of resurgent GOP strength were probably overdone.
My prediction: No Senate for the GOP and the (D)onks just barely keep the House. More of the same Obamadness next two years.
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
There were plenty of reasons to vote against this bill outside of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
The Dems are exciting their base by telling people that’s why the GOP voted it down though.
Of course, maybe that one or two swing vote might have voted against it due to that, but still…politics as usual from both sides.
September 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
The defense reauthorization bill was bundled with a repeal of don’t ask don’t tell AND step 1 of amnesty (the DREAM act). It was packaged that way so republicans would vote against it and dems could demagogue it. You, say uncle, fell for that.
The pentagon is going to make a recommendation about DADT in a few months. Do you think Congress should get rid of the policy without waiting to hear what they recommend?
September 22nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm
To follow up on what cargosquid said, repealing DADT without repealing Art 125 actually will hurt gay and lesbian servicemembers. Sodomy is a stand-alone felony charge under the UCMJ (regardless of sexual orientation), and DADT prevents LGBT servicemembers from recieving a felony conviction once the command no longer has plausible deniability that a servicemember is gay. DADT(DPDD) gives an administrative discharge under honorable conditions instead. DADT was the compromise in 1993 when a Dem majority congress wouldn’t repeal Art. 125.
I served on submarines. I had gay shipmates, and it was no big deal. As long as the command could officially deny knowing, everything went swimmingly. The only persons I saw discharged under DADT were those who gave the command no choice.
Regards,
Pol
September 22nd, 2010 at 3:05 pm
I look at it like this. I know for a fact that the majority of Marines I served with hated fags. Not just a little either. If you are not in the military then you should have no say what so ever about banning queers in the military. That simple. The UCMJ was created for a reason. To maintain order. I really hate it when politicians and dirty nasty civilians start making the military follow their politically correct cannot hurt anyone’s feelings bullshit. We have enough of that when it comes to the battlefield much less shoving down our throats when we are at home. No one is forcing you to join up. No draft. The military is and always has been a fighting force of straight people no way around it. If an organization promotes something you disagree with then you should probably not join that organization. That would be like me joining those losers at greenpeace when I actually hate the fuckers. Also that federal judge who supposedly ruled against the DADT is out of line. When you join the military you shed your civilian rights for the few granted by the UCMJ. Freedom of speech is not one of the rights you keep when you join the military. You only have the rights your superior officers allow you and even they are limited to the UCMJ. The judge overstepped his boundary in ruling on something that does not apply to the military. In the civilian world of love, peace and dope it would apply quite sadly. By the way. As I saw it the democraps jumped ship and supported the dumplublicans for this bill.
September 22nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm
At least the pubs and some dems got it right this time. Wish they got it right more often.
September 22nd, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Uncle, why did you fall for this stunt?
September 22nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Wow. I’m surprised at the heat this issue generates.
At what appears to be great risk of being blog-flogged, I’ll say two things in defense of DADT.
–The main purpose and effect of the policy was to curb the more overt, in-your-face behaviors associated with homosexuality.
–I’ve spent cold, rainy nights under one poncho with another soldier, both of us trying to stay dry and warmer, maybe get a couple hours sleep, but only one of us having the poncho. Not sure I’d want to share a poncho with some horny homosexual soldier.
–At the core of the argument is the degree to which the Congress, responding to what they perceive to be public and political pressure to change social norms should use the military to achieve some social aim–to substitute another morality for the more normative morality. The less of that using the military for social engineering the better and let them focus on killing enemy–and trying to stay dry.
Oh, boy, hitting “Submit Comment” now.
September 23rd, 2010 at 9:24 am
John: sounds like your position is exactly what Lady Gaga said it is, which is to say you think the military should protect homophobes from having to grow the fuck up.
It’s like saying “hey, a majority of white Alabamans hated black people in the 50s…what business did people in DC have making them put up with them in their schools and buses?” Even if it was true that a majority of those you served with didn’t “like it”, why are we letting their juvenile sensitivities dictate policy like that? Buck the fuck up Marine and do your job without paying attention to the other guy’s private life. If your “order” is that fragile, we’ve got an issue.
Uncle didn’t fall for shit. He’s on the money. It’s sad to see the GOP mustering all that unanimity for something this petty.
MJM–not much of a defense for DADT. If you’re in support of the policy, then you’re conceding that you might be sharing a poncho with a gay dude and just not knowing it.
The reality is gay people don’t have any problems keeping their genitals in check any more than you do. Could you share a poncho with a female soldier without harassing her? Of course you could. That viewpoint is predicated on the facile prejudice that gay people are necessarily attracted to EVERY person of the same gender and when so attracted aren’t capable of just doing their job and not behaving like a rational adult.
And that’s just dumb as fuckall can be.
Are you attracted to every woman you’ve seen in the service? Shudder…
And goddamn…1991 called, they want that retarded “social engineering” argument back. That was the dumb shit the phobic community was using back then. Name another context in which that phrase is used–it’s a retarded effort to suggest a non-discriminatory policy is some sort of “experiment” where there’s a chance something awful might happen, and that this is somehow reckless tinkering.
It wasn’t social engineering when sodomy laws weren’t enforced, it wasn’t social engineering when other forms of gender, race, and religious discrimination were yanked…
This is simply bringing the military into line with the rest of the society from which it’s members come, and saying “grow the fuck up you guys, you don’t have the right when collecting a taxpayer funded salary to have a little boys club that can get away with intolerant, discriminatory policies.”
Given the number of Arab linguists bounced out under DADT since the WOT began, you’d think people would fucking get it.
September 23rd, 2010 at 1:47 pm
So, Sebastian, you would have preferred the GOP to vote in favor of this amendment without waiting to see what the Pentagon study recommends? And you would have had them vote in favor of the DREAM act also? It was a package deal.
September 24th, 2010 at 7:49 am
I’m in the military so, by any argument have a right to talk about this. We all know what the ‘study’ is going to find and how long it’s going to take to do anything at all. That will be Fall of 2012 when O will again start making noise about it.
This is a political ploy to try and keep the DNC from losing as badly to the Stupid Party in Nov as it’s looking like they will. That is all it is. Gays have already been thrown under the bus. Hence why it was a ‘package deal’.
As for DADT, the majority of soldiers I serve w/ act like adults and really don’t give a crap. We’ld rather have Choi serving w/ us who can do his job well instead of a lesser trained replacement there just because Choi likes sticking his dick in a different hole.
September 24th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Tim,
As mentioned elsewhere, if the GOP wasn’t uniformly in partisan lockstep with the pro-DADT forces, a filibuster proof coalition could have been formed to strip the onerous amendments out.
The other nonsense just gave the phobic-crowd the cover they needed.
September 24th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Sebastian,
That’s some interesting speculation. That they had to vote yes or no on this is fact. What would you have had them do? Vote for this (without waiting for the Pentagon’s recommendation) and the DREAM act? Or not?