DADT possible vote tonight!

[Riot]

In the previous two years, all of the following had more than enough votes, Constitutionally, to pass into law, and were passed or passable by the House, but were filibustered by the Senate GOP so that those votes could not even be taken.

In the new Senate, where the Democrats still hold the majority, these bills would still pass.

Health care with a public option
Tougher financial reform
A more aggressive recovery package that actually would have lowered unemployment
The DREAM act
A climate and energy policy
Renewal of the nuclear START treaty
Repeal of DADT
A middle class-only tax cut

I want my country back. I'm in favor of our Constitution. I'm in favor of voting for a House of Representatives, and a Senate, and allowing them to vote on the issues facing our country.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

In the previous two years, all of the following had more than enough votes, Constitutionally, to pass into law, and were passed or passable by the House, but were filibustered by the Senate GOP so that those votes could not even be taken.

In the new Senate, where the Democrats still hold the majority, these bills would still pass.

Health care with a public option
Tougher financial reform
A more aggressive recovery package that actually would have lowered unemployment
The DREAM act
A climate and energy policy
Renewal of the nuclear START treaty
Repeal of DADT
A middle class-only tax cut

I want my country back. I'm in favor of our Constitution. I'm in favor of voting for a House of Representatives, and a Senate, and allowing them to vote on the issues facing our country.

A bit hypocritical no? Even for a former republican!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

A bit hypocritical no? Even for a former republican!

Hypocritical? That middle America co-opts a rightwing talking point? What's hypocritical about following our Constitution, and demanding our elected officials do the same? We have a small group working hard at blocking our governmental, Constitutional processes. Most of the issues, above, would pass, but I'm sure some would not. The point is, that our Constitution allows us to elect a House, and a Senate, and the Constitution says the important issues of our day get to be brought up, discussed, and voted upon by our elected representatives. The GOP is completely blocking our Constitutional processes. Enough is enough.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Hypocritical? That middle America co-opts a rightwing talking point? What's hypocritical about following our Constitution, and demanding our elected officials do the same? We have a small group working hard at blocking our governmental, Constitutional processes. Most of the issues, above, would pass, but I'm sure some would not. The point is, that our Constitution allows us to elect a House, and a Senate, and the Constitution says the important issues of our day get to be brought up, discussed, and voted upon. The GOP is completely blocking our Constitutional processes. Enough is enough.

I highlighted the DREAM ACT and wanting your country back.

How does educating, giving citizenship and then employing ILLEGALS get the country back other than putting legals on the 3 yr unemployment plan? The illegals that sign onto the military are obviously taking the place of someone as we have no draft and I thought we (WE BEING LEGAL AMERICANS) have an unemployment problem?

But then again you agreed with the President saying we couldn't afford NOT to let the tax relief expire for those over 250K but now somehow have the money to not only continue the Bush plan for all but ALSO put in a payroll and SS tax reduction? What did we hit the lotto and I don't know it?

[Antitrust32]

"This bill would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning"



yeah, like that is such a horrible thing. Del, get a grip.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

yeah, like that is such a horrible thing. Del, get a grip.

This is just getting the foot in the door for later.

Adios amigos, maybe when things improve a little bit.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

"This bill would provide certain illegal and deportable alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning"



yeah, like that is such a horrible thing. Del, get a grip.

There are plenty of issues with it.
1. How does the gov't define "good moral character"?
2. How do you prove a minor has been in the country for 5 continous years?
3. Who exactly is going to pay for them to attend a 4 year college? And is it fair that illegals will get preference over citizens? As we all know colleges lie to have a "diverse" student population and what is more diverse than illegal ailens?
4. And why in the world do they have to only do 2 years at a 4 year school? Wouldn't a degree at a 2 year school be better than 2 years and out the door at a 4 year school?

I believe we need a much better immigration policy. But this is simply pandering to the latino voters

[Riot]

There are plenty of issues with it.

I don't see them.

1. How does the gov't define "good moral character"?

Documentable things like no arrests help. School records of being in trouble or not. Community service, volunteerism, etc.

2. How do you prove a minor has been in the country for 5 continous years?

School records.

3. Who exactly is going to pay for them to attend a 4 year college?

They do. It's part of wanting to be a citizen. Earning it.

And is it fair that illegals will get preference over citizens?

Nobody said that. They get no "preference" That's something you made up.

As we all know colleges lie to have a "diverse" student population and what is more diverse than illegal ailens?

Your "preference" fear is completely false. You'll have to deal with the private and public colleges of the country regarding their admissions policies, if you don't care for them.

4. And why in the world do they have to only do 2 years at a 4 year school? Wouldn't a degree at a 2 year school be better than 2 years and out the door at a 4 year school?

Because the plan is to encourage advanced education (continuing on to finish a degree) which tends to ensure a fairly contributing citizen to society. Or, they can do a little military service to give back to their country. Either way, if they want to stay here and earn their citizenship, they have to earn it. They can't just drop out of high school, or finish high school, and just stay here illegally.

(I'm reminded several countries require 2 years military service of all their young citizens)

I believe we need a much better immigration policy. But this is simply pandering to the latino voters

Or, one can see it's making the children of illegals, who through no choice of their own were brought here, lived here throughout their childhood, speak English, grew up here, attended school here, know and have already integrated into our culture - a way to legally stay in their home country. Because we don't punish the innocent for crimes they didn't commit. If they want to stay here when they reach majority, they can do so, if they go through the path to citizenship. It's logical, it doesn't cost the government other than the paperwork, and it encourages productive, dedicated Americans.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I highlighted the DREAM ACT and wanting your country back.

How does educating, giving citizenship and then employing ILLEGALS get the country back other than putting legals on the 3 yr unemployment plan? The illegals that sign onto the military are obviously taking the place of someone as we have no draft and I thought we (WE BEING LEGAL AMERICANS) have an unemployment problem?

In my America, hardworking immigrants that want to become citizens - like my grandparents - are welcomed. Children of illegals are minors - they didn't make the conscious choice to be illegal, as their parents did. This is their home and, when they are adults, if they want to renounce their country of origin and follow the path to gain citizenship, more power to them. And I don't care if they are Canadian, Irish or German.

But then again you agreed with the President saying we couldn't afford NOT to let the tax relief expire for those over 250K but now somehow have the money to not only continue the Bush plan for all but ALSO put in a payroll and SS tax reduction? What did we hit the lotto and I don't know it?

Did you miss where I have repeatedly said I am against that, as it is unfunded, and I want it funded? We can get rid of those ridiculous non-job-producing tax cuts for those earning over 1 million, that will fund half of it readily. I am for a payroll tax deduction, but against it coming from Social Security as it sets a precedence I don't like.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you miss where I have repeatedly said I am against that, as it is unfunded, and I want it funded? We can get rid of those ridiculous non-job-producing tax cuts for those earning over 1 million, that will fund half of it readily. I am for a payroll tax deduction, but against it coming from Social Security as it sets a precedence I don't like.

well i'm thrilled the dems turned on Obama and no worries a bunch of new energized faces will be in DC soon. It's too commonly used but this crew has done enough, in fact far too much.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

well i'm thrilled the dems turned on Obama and no worries a bunch of new energized faces will be in DC soon. It's too commonly used but this crew has done enough, in fact far too much.

Because personal dislike issues are more important to you than our massive deficit? I seem to recall you screeching about the cost of this. You are throwing out allies who agree with you simply due to your prejudice against Democrats? Do you have a consistent point of view, Dell?

Let me ask you this, too: are you for the party whose priority is catering to the wealthiest 2% of our country? Who voted down tax cuts for the middle class, who voted down tax cuts for all those who earn up to 1 million dollars, and held out for tax cuts for those richest that earn over 1 million dollars? The party who, for the first time in 48 years, failed to pass a defense appropriations bill, rather than let gay military servicepeople willing to die for their country not have to continue to lie? This is the party making choices you like?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

In the new Senate, where the Democrats still hold the majority, these bills would still pass.

Health care with a public option Bad idea
Tougher financial reformbad idea
A more aggressive recovery package that actually would have lowered unemploymentLOL
The DREAM actidea that needs a lot to tweaking
A climate and energy policybad idea
Renewal of the nuclear START treatywill eventually get done
Repeal of DADTwill happen eventually
A middle class-only tax cutbad idea

I want my country back. I'm in favor of our Constitution. I'm in favor of voting for a House of Representatives, and a Senate, and allowing them to vote on the issues facing our country.

LOL. Stop the whining, deal with it. The GOP said very clearly they would not deal with anything else until the tax cuts were taken care of. The Pres has a deal with them but the democrats cry and cry and cry and then cry some more when the GOP does exactly what they told them they would do. I'm sorry to alert you to the fact that gays in the military is slightly less on the minds of most Americans right now with a gigantic tax increase staring them in the face.

And since the GOP seems to have learned some lessons from their ass beating in 2008, you'd better get used to it.
At least you will have plenty to complain about for the next 10 years.

[Riot]

LOL. Stop the whining, deal with it.

I'm sure the Dems will. The GOP will have to find a new way to be completely obstructionist when the Senate changes their parliamentary rules January 2011 to alter how the filibuster can occur The GOP will have to grow up, take responsibility and put their public vote on the record, rather than preventing votes from even happening.

And since the GOP seems to have learned some lessons from their ass beating in 2008, you'd better get used to it.
At least you will have plenty to complain about for the next 10 years.

Seriously? Sarah Palin? Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Newt Gingrich? Tim Pawlenty? The group of unelectables?

[Antitrust32]

Newt is the one who should be elected, if the American people knew what was good for them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Newt is the one who should be elected, if the American people knew what was good for them.

Two ex-wives, one current wife, repeated adultery with the next while married to the first two, alcoholism, publicly saying people should do as he says, not as he does, and disastrously shutting the government down during Clinton years, angering the entire American populace. Unelectable.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Two ex-wives, one current wife, repeated adultery with the next while married to the first two, alcoholism, publicly saying people should do as he says, not as he does, and disastrously shutting the government down during Clinton years, angering the entire American populace. Unelectable.

so you think 1994-1999 were years of failure for america?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so you think 1994-1999 were years of failure for america?

I think she's talking about the time they actually shut down the government, not what you're saying.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so you think 1994-1999 were years of failure for america?

No.

I'm talking about the two times Newt Gingrich shut down the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...utdown_of_1995

In addition to that, ethically and morally Newton is unelectable. He's a serial adulterer, aside from being an alchoholic. Newt committed adultery with younger women while his wives were ill - he did that to wife number 1 and wife number 2 - and he's on wife number 3 now.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Newt is the one who should be elected, if the American people knew what was good for them.

oh good lord no.