DADT possible vote tonight!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think the Marines need to deal with it. in about 1 week time after the repeal is done, they will realize it was like the smallest deal in the world and that nothing has changed for the worse.

it might be just my experience but the marines I have known are a bit different than the other branches and don't react to 'deal with it' very well. They seem to want to destroy or eliminate rather than deal.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

it might be just my experience but the marines I have known are a bit different than the other branches and don't react to 'deal with it' very well. They seem to want to destroy or eliminate rather than deal.

see 'a few good men' no pun intended

[Riot]

The Democrats have turned the tables on the GOP, and Bernie Sanders is up there on the Senate floor, actually holding the floor and talking ... C-Span2 You go, Bernie. You even filibuster better than the GOP. At least you have the balls to actually hold the floor <g>

Update: He started at 10:30, and it's 3:30, five hours, and the old guy is still going. Good for him <g>

[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

2/3rds of the country wants DADT to be changes... plus 70% of the military.

Plus the House Representatives. Plus the Senate has 60 votes to change it, far more than the 51 they need. So it's a shame the minority GOP is preventing a vote on this by filibuster, holding the rest of the country hostage to their minority opinion.

The GOP can continue obstructing, and let the courts rule it unconstitutional, order immediate repeal (not good implementation for the military), or the President can simply executive order it into oblivion (which leaves it able to be re-implemented in the future).

So the GOP will get another chance to get their heads out of their butts, let the military control how it is repealed and implemented, and vote once more on this before this congress ends at Christmas.

[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.

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I think the Marines need to deal with it. in about 1 week time after the repeal is done, they will realize it was like the smallest deal in the world and that nothing has changed for the worse.

it would be nice if those against it would come to the realization that gays have been and are now a part of the military. it hasn't been a problem and it won't be a problem.

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Democrats have turned the tables on the GOP, and Bernie Sanders is up there on the Senate floor, actually holding the floor and talking ... C-Span2 You go, Bernie. You even filibuster better than the GOP. At least you have the balls to actually hold the floor <g>

Update: He started at 10:30, and it's 3:30, five hours, and the old guy is still going. Good for him <g>

lol
now, since it's the dems, filibustering is just peachy. glad to see you're consistent.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
now, since it's the dems, filibustering is just peachy. glad to see you're consistent.

You can laugh, but you fail to see the difference. He was speaking during debate. The bill wasn't filibustered from coming to the floor, nor was a vote filibustered. The bill was brought to the floor for debate. He talked for 8 1/2 hours during open floor debate. And at least he held the floor, too, talking about his position.

The GOP filibusters to prevent bills from even coming to the floor for discussion by the Majority Leader. They file an "intent to filibuster", then go home.

And "intent" forces the bill on the back burner until the majority can come up with 60 votes to even bring it to the floor. Takes at least a week. There is no standing on the floor and actually doing something, either.

And then, if the bill ever gets brought to the floor for discussion, they block debate, and then they block the ability to vote on it - as they have done this week alone with DADT, the Dream Act, the military appropriations bill, etc.

The GOP hasn't voted bills down. They have prevented the entire Senate from voting on bills. The GOP is simply obstructive jerks.

Well, two can play that game, and the Dems are going to take away their parliamentary ability to do that. There will still be a filibuster, but the minority won't be able to hold the majority hostage, and circumvent the Constitution, anymore.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You can laugh, but you fail to see the difference. .

[Danzig]

oh, now it's unconstitutional?! lol yeah, good luck with that.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, now it's unconstitutional?! lol yeah, good luck with that.

There really is a difference.

Just because Riot said it doesn't make it untrue.

You may be as tired of all this stuff as anyone, but I know for a fact personally that you're far from dimwitted enough to fail to understand the difference.

Nascar? I'll give him a pass for lacking the basic function to see the difference. But you? Pretend Riot didn't say it. Then the difference is obvious.

Doesn't make an ounce of difference or change in the long-run, but they're hardly the same thing as far as filibusters go.

[Danzig]

in terms of numbers, i already said there'd been a difference. what i find so amusing is the suggestion that the dems are actually going to attempt to make the filibuster no longer allowed. they don't have the numbers to do that come january. they didn't do it the last two years when they may have had the numbers. and the reps are stonewalling on everything right now because this is a lame-duck session, and they don't want something going thru now before the new house can tackle it.
and i know that the term 'filibuster' isn't mentioned in the constitution. i also know that the phrase 'separation of church and state' isn't in there either. nor is 'all men are created equal'.
as for the dems truly wanting rid of the filibuster-why would they get rid of something they've made use of in the past, and may want to use again? i won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. it's a convenient scapegoat to blame a party when something you want done doesn't happen.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what i find so amusing is the suggestion that the dems are actually going to attempt to make the filibuster no longer allowed.

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's a convenient scapegoat to blame a party when something you want done doesn't happen.

I also don't think that it's necessarily scapegoating to point out obstructionism on a HUGE scale, compared to what it's historically been used for.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course not.



I also don't think that it's necessarily scapegoating to point out obstructionism on a HUGE scale, compared to what it's historically been used for.

it's a convenient excuse for failure to act by both sides. yet, when there's something both sides want, they somehow make a deal-such as unemployment extensions in exchange for continued tax breaks.

don't get me wrong, i am in no way defending the republicans actions. i just think it's ironic that only now is the filibuster viewed as an evil...but when the other party uses it, it's a necessary tool-depending on one's point of view of course. me, i think they all suck, and would never depend on one side or the other to attempt anything trully meaningful or to put their constituents first. they are in it for themselves and the party. nor do i trust them at all, as all pols are cut from the same cloth. just some are on one side of the debate, and the others are on the other side. it would be like thinking a chevy salesman is taking care of the customer, while the ford salesman is not-or vice versa. the salesman, or pol, isn't in it for the customer/taxpayer. they'll tell you what they think you want to here, in order to sell you their product.

but since some are convinced that the dems really, truly want to tackle how to fix the filibuster....could you tell me why they're going to do that now, as opposed to sitting on their hands in that regard the last two years? i haven't seen anyone address that point yet.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

me, i think they all suck, and would never depend on one side or the other to attempt anything trully meaningful or to put their constituents first. they are in it for themselves and the party.

I learn this more and more every year.

[Danzig]

i expect nothing from any of them. i'd rather be surprised than disappointed.