It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans block efforts in ending 'Don't ask don't tell'

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Dream Act like links said.

Why is it Congress always has to sneak in amendments to bills, that have NOTHING to do with component they are passing?

See the defense budget bill? Another trick by Congress to sneak in legislation that has nothing to do with military spending.

Why does the Congress always do this?

Also, just so everyone knows, here is a little clip from a former president.

Whole lotta revisionist history going on, so make sure you look up the REAL history.

Check it, always good for a laugh when those in government get on television and revise history.

Clinton on DADT-Clinton Regrets Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; Blames Congress and Colin Powell



My Libertarian friends for freedom -

What is this crap?

I have seen this same hide behind the government applied to gay marriage too -

Such a forthright stance to use; obstruction - using your mortal enemy the government as a prop to hide behind.
You really can't better your case by dancing with the same concept you oppose.

Foam in your case did you see the deflection you used?



Why is it Congress always has to sneak in amendments to bills, that have NOTHING to do with component they are passing?


Boom!!! immediately shifted the focus,,, what an opportune time to use this specific argument, it is a good point,
but it as very clear to me what you are doing. You and Mnemeth are very rich intellectually, yet both of you
used the most poverty stricken of methods to skirt around the issue of wether or not gays should beable to serve in the military. It is like both of you emulate the pathetic politicians you claim to hate;

Do either of you believe that the GOP will not fund the military??? (just typing that made me laugh BTW)

We all know the answer to that question, which makes it very clear that both of you are hiding your motives
by chiming in so BOLDLY, with such brilliant deflections at hand. If both of you plan on oppressing peoples
sexual inclinations with government, why do you guys waste your time will all your other efforts? It defeats your own purpose, is contrary to your rhetoric and it is painfully transparent.






edit on 22-9-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Generals rise through the ranks and are all part of a chain of command for a specific area of the military. Civilians are not part of any chain of command. If you want to think you're in charge of the military that is fine. It really doesn't bother me since it doesn't matter.

That is enough of this off topic banter, if you want to continue me telling you that you are wrong make another thread.


I agree that this discussion is off the thread, and we'll not be changing each other's minds any time soon. Just a thought...as a member of the political party in power at the time, I made it clear to my Prime Minister that we should not join the party in Iraq. That collective voice controlled the country's military policy.

And when that military breaks Canadian law, they are accountable to the civilians. When the elements of the Airborne went rogue, they were disbanded and scattered. Believe what you wish, but thanks for the chat, just the same.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
the democrats didn't want this to pass, don't let anybody fool you... the republicans can't stop anything... I thought Liberals had a high IQ, but you don't seem to grasp simple math...THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO STOP ANYTHING... and besides that civilians really should have no say in this issue anyway..... Now the democrats can cry, about how the Republicans hate Mexicans and Gays... and that is exactly what is happening...



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Target Earth
 


Thank goodness I'm not alone on this, I was sure I was.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 23refugee
 


I mentioned it earlier.....it just got ignored because they have no reasonable response to that.
Again, they passed health care with out the republicans, so the whole story is a lie, it should be bipartisan effort fails to pass the repeal. However, to tell the truth they'd have to admit that the dems didn't pass it either, just another right bashing thread with no substance.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
but you don't seem to grasp simple math...THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO STOP ANYTHING... and besides that civilians really should have no say in this issue anyway..... Now the democrats can cry, about how the Republicans hate Mexicans and Gays... and that is exactly what is happening...


Well they did, several Democrats voted against it too.

How would you describe an entire political party voting in a manner that represses gay people?
That is pretty simple math

100%

Would you describe it as,,, love of gays???

How should I describe the feeling that motivated this vote?

Republicans love gays so much; they do not want to see gays killed in battle



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by 23refugee
 


I mentioned it earlier.....it just got ignored because they have no reasonable response to that.
Again, they passed health care with out the republicans, so the whole story is a lie, it should be bipartisan effort fails to pass the repeal. However, to tell the truth they'd have to admit that the dems didn't pass it either, just another right bashing thread with no substance.


The whole story is a lie?

The Dems did not pass it because 100% - ALL - every single one of the GOP voted against -

Several Dems did too

Are you equating 4% with 100%???

It has total substance, you are intellectually dishonest as they come in this matter.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Man, I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but the dems could have passed it, yes or no? Funny, Obama was this great savior of the nation, has it locked up to pass anything and everything, and yet, other than healthcare, eh......talk about ineffective. The dems could have passed it, they didn't end of story. Does this make all dems homophobic, after all anytime a minority in the republican party does something controversial, it reflects the whole parties feelings?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Wasn't it paired with the DREAM Act? Surely no one expected that long shot to win, even by a nose.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
In all honesty, I'd vote against any bill that attempted to do two (or more) completely unrelated things and was longer than two pages.

However, since the thread is about the don't-ask-don't-tell policy... let's explore some potential problems that we can extrapolate from our previous experience with including women in the military. Namely - logistical issues.

Women have to be berthed separately from men (that's living spaces, for those of you landlubbers). They also must have separate washing and dressing facilities. Then you have issues relating to pregnancy - maternal leave, breast-feeding (it's either a navpers or milpers requirement that a room be designated for breast-feeding that is not a bathroom or wash-room, for instance - I forget if that is simply a Navy policy, or if that is DoD-wide).

Now let's open up the ranks to expressing gender confusion. There are reasons we don't allow men and women to shower together in the military. Why should we then allow open homosexuals to shower with members of the same sex? Though we cannot hardly allow them to shower with the opposite sex, either. How about housing? Do we allow homosexuals to room together?

That's a fairly big stumbling block, right there. I can't room with a female service member because her and I are dating - only time that's allowed is when you're dealing with on-base housing. Of course - homosexuals could room together and not be involved - but, it's the concept of "they are allowed to have fun and the rest of us aren't."

I suppose you could lock them all up in their own little boxes in the cargo hold - but that's sure to anger some human rights activists, somewhere.

I don't care what someone does when they rent a hotel for the weekend and leave the base - that's generally the consensus of the military. If they show up on time, do their job well, and are team players, then it's their choice and life. However, open homosexuality has no place in the military for the same reason integrated berthing has no place in the military. You're just opening up a massive can of worms that is best left alone.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Man, I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but the dems could have passed it, yes or no? Funny, Obama was this great savior of the nation, has it locked up to pass anything and everything, and yet, other than healthcare, eh......talk about ineffective. The dems could have passed it, they didn't end of story. Does this make all dems homophobic, after all anytime a minority in the republican party does something controversial, it reflects the whole parties feelings?


What truth is that, the truth that 100% of the GOP voted against this bill???



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by Target Earth
but you don't seem to grasp simple math...THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO STOP ANYTHING... and besides that civilians really should have no say in this issue anyway..... Now the democrats can cry, about how the Republicans hate Mexicans and Gays... and that is exactly what is happening...


Well they did, several Democrats voted against it too.

How would you describe an entire political party voting in a manner that represses gay people?
That is pretty simple math

100%

Would you describe it as,,, love of gays???


How should I describe the feeling that motivated this vote?

Republicans love gays so much; they do not want to see gays killed in battle



That makes no sense
OK, but I thought all these Republicans have Gay sex with young boys at Bohemian Grove, but don't like Gay people...
yes we all just hate gay people, you have nailed it... or maybe they are self loathing homosexual's



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
@@: I'll ask you again, do you support the efforts of the Republicans blocking DODT from being removed? Do you support DODT?


I do not support unisex bathrooms/showerooms especially if installed AFTER someone enlisted.


Why do gays or lesbians demand unisex bathrooms again? More generalizations I see.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by Target Earth
but you don't seem to grasp simple math...THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO STOP ANYTHING... and besides that civilians really should have no say in this issue anyway..... Now the democrats can cry, about how the Republicans hate Mexicans and Gays... and that is exactly what is happening...


Well they did, several Democrats voted against it too.

How would you describe an entire political party voting in a manner that represses gay people?
That is pretty simple math

100%

Would you describe it as,,, love of gays???


How should I describe the feeling that motivated this vote?

Republicans love gays so much; they do not want to see gays killed in battle



That makes no sense
OK, but I thought all these Republicans have Gay sex with young boys at Bohemian Grove, but don't like Gay people...
yes we all just hate gay people, you have nailed it... or maybe they are self loathing homosexual's


What is your real guess???

I want to understand



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
the arguement of repealing DADT is under the facade of people not being kicked out for being gay, but that is not going to be affected, only wether they can talk about it will be effected, if they choose to kick someone out for being gay their gonna do it no matter the DADT policy, they just may do it under a different excuse.


You do realise that DODT is not about telling ribald tales around the campfire...that it refers to "We won't ask if you're gay, and you don't tell us you're gay"...right?


you DO realise it is not DODT but DADT right?

and you do realise that "We won't ask if you're gay, and you don't tell us you're gay" also applies to "ribald tales around the campfire" right?

you think DADT simply means no gays in the military, thats wrong, DADT only means they are not allowed to ask you if you are gay and you are not allowed to tell people so, like i said before this is used for all sexual sittuations, we cant ask you and you can't tell us,

we need to pass a bill that the military cannot kick someone out for being gay, thats it, if you pass a bill which makes it ok for people to ask them if they are gay and ok for them to tell people they are gay, they are still going to be kicked out,

you idiots supporting repeal of DADT are only supporting identifieing and catagorizing whos gay and whos not, instead of allowing them to continue serving with all sexual relevance kept private,

you want everyones sexuality private or public knowledge? thats the question here

DADT forces them to keep all sexual private, repealing it will only make it public

this will not affect who the military kicks out or why.

it's as if people dont think you can have gays in the military with DADT, its the opposite, you cant have gays in the military WITHOUT DADT thats why the gays lobbied so hard to have DADT passed, and now you people support its repeal, THAT is anti-gay




Originally posted by Sestias
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 

As I understand you, it seems your objection to repealing DADT mainly centers around your anxiety about what service personnel will discuss. You have even provided a list of the dread fetishes they might talk about.


but of course DADT is ONLY about what they are allowed to discuss, after all ASKING or TELLING is nothing more than discussion,


I do not serve in the military, but I can assure you that from what I know men and women in uniform discuss all sorts of topics with each other and in the company of other soldiers. They can talk about whatever they want to and they do.
what they CAN do is not the same as what they are ALLOWED to do, you have pin pointed the problem, military personel are NOT allowed to discuss sex or sexual preference BECAUSE OF DADT sure they still do, but they are violating DADT by doing so,


I am guessing (I may be wrong) that your objections are primarily moral. You fear a "slippery slope" of socially taboo topics down which our soldiers might slide.


exactly, as i said they are NOT allowed to talk about sex or sexual preference thanks to DADT but with its repeal all those things become permissable topics.


You are entitled to your own moral code, but you probably cannot enforce it on others, and I for one would resist you if you tried, especially if it pertained only to what can be talked about



edit on 22-9-2010 by Sestias because: word choice



then you should not join the military, because that is exactly what this is about.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Republicans are disgusting people. I can't believe they remain to be uncivilized in their views on sexual orientation.

What a bunch of close minded bigots. This is why we need a Liberal government, not a conservative anti human rights one.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
you think DADT simply means no gays in the military, thats wrong, DADT only means they are not allowed to ask you if you are gay and you are not allowed to tell people so, like i said before this is used for all sexual sittuations, we cant ask you and you can't tell us,

we need to pass a bill that the military cannot kick someone out for being gay, thats it, if you pass a bill which makes it ok for people to ask them if they are gay and ok for them to tell people they are gay, they are still going to be kicked out,


I think you're misunderstanding the DADT policy. It's true that if they don't ask and you don't tell it's ok...however, if it's found that you are gay under the policy you are removed because the policy stipulates such. Irregardless of whether or not you were asked prior to the accusation.

Simply being gay in the military, even if you never tell another servicemember is grounds for dismissal from the military.


...the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."


Source via wikipedia

The title of the policy is a gross generalization of the policy itself.

You're right, we need a bill that says you can't kick out homosexuals from the military for simply being homosexual...or you could simply repeal the part of the law that says you can do that. Which is what repealing DADT is.

DADT was implemented by Clinton to prevent servicemembers from being seperated when congress stopped him from lifting the ban on gays imposed by Reagan. The current policy was implemented by congress in 1994, which is also why the current president can't just say the policy is done with.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I find it funny how the far left loathes the military, talks down to them continually and refers to them as warmongers/baby killers etcc

...UNLESS it has to do with getting/keeping gays and lesbians in. Gays and lesbians have just as much right to be warmongers and baby killers as straight people do!

I would have voted no on the bill based on the cost alone. There's going to be a lot of cuts made come November/2012. From social programs to the military. Everyone is going to have to tighten the belt, so we can stop whoring America out to China...



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Heres a question for you guys. How many of you a served in the military and understand how things work?

We have more classes on sexual harassment then military history or tactics. It degrades moral when the soilders feel like they have to walk on eggshells around certian people. Hell you cant even yell at people anymore cuase they might hurth their feelings..

About gays in the military, where do they sleep/shower? Cant have them in the same barracks with open bay showers cuase that is not fair to the straight guys. They dont want to be looked at. And I know someone is going to say omg not all gays will look at the guys in the shower, well if thats the case then ALL barracks should be Co-ed right. But they are not cuase the guys can help be look.

Most soilders dont care if there are gays in the military, but you have to ask yourself as a soilder in a ALPHA male world. Would they follow him into battle? Most good leaders lead by example and if that exmaple is completly different from yourself it might be hard to do.

Those that have never been in the military really should not open theirs mouths because you do not understand the stress or what could have a good or bad effect on the fighting force.

Sorry for the bad grammer, I just woke up


TheGear



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Forgive me if this point was mentioned already but this bill was not just about Don't Ask Don't Tell but the Dream Act was also included in it. The following is a quote from Usmoneytalk.com

"The Dream Act defined
Dream is an acronym for Development, Relief & Education for Alien Minors. In its current form, this new piece of legislation would permit resident aliens who have lived in good standing within the United States for five years to receive conditional permanent residency status. By this status, they are able to take advantage of federal and state funding programs such as grants and higher education loans.

What the Dream act costs taxpayers
Proponents of the Dream Act claim that the interest gained from federal loan programs and small business development will outweigh the costs. Plus, they claim a reduction of law enforcement costs associated with illegal immigration. For all the bad press the Tea Party has garnered I think it's great that it does not have a mission statement. Without one they have complete autonomy and cannot be pinned down to any one party which always allows participation from both sides should you want to defect temporarily and that is a good thing because it gets both sides paranoid and concerned.

However, these numbers are based on models that exaggerate the real world application of the policy. Many analysts find the figures to be anchored in best-case scenarios, with worst-case scenarios indicating a continued bankrupting of budgets."

And I guess this is a common practice which some refer to as pork barrel spending or inserting a lesser less popular request for money or act of congress in something that is guaranteed to pit party against party should it get voted down. Judging by the responses from peopel it worked like a charm and regardless the republicans end up looking like biggots. Please note that both sides practice this tactic and the bigger issue would be if this is so important or any bill for that matter why not have a seperate bill on it's own passed with no fillers. Why because personal agendas would be amplified and the transparency of both parties would be quite clear. All is ask is before you jump to conlusions on any bill being voted on is that you look at all the other stuff that is attached.
www.usmoneytalk.com...



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join