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: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I could care less if gays are in the military. Does not bother me one bit.

What bothers me is sneaking legislation that has nothing to do with the warmongering, being included with it.

Dream Act-Reid: DREAM Act Will be Added to Defense Authorization Bill

This is a political ploy, aka sleaze.

A bill that the Repubs will back because it is money for the soldiers and war, then the Dems sneak in their Dream Legislation to keep the illegals happy, include a provision on the DADT controversy, then if the Repubs vote against it they can say they are against the troops.

Such an obvious ploy it is hilarious. Including the DADT was just icing on the cake for the Dems.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Come on everyone, lets calm down and be honest here. Did you really expect a bill that included giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, to receive Republican support? Remember that whole thing going on down in Arizona that has galvanized the immigration issue? This bill was never going to get Republican support with the amnesty included. The OP chooses to make this about DADT, but really it was about amnesty, and the fact that Reid refused to remove the amnesty provision from the bill.

Everyone in here needs to stop with the finger pointing and hate and thing logically. Amnesty was the reason this bill couldn't get 1 Republican vote, and also why it lost a few Democrats.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
If they don't pass a bill to continue funding the war, does this mean they will have to bring the troops home????

This could be the best thing the Republicans have ever voted to do.

I guess you really can have your cake and it it too.

By not "supporting" the troops you have when you go to war, you get the opportunity to keep the troops you don't want at home.

I can't help but wonder what would happen if "ALL" the troops "claimed to be gay" at the same time. Would this get TPTB to change their minds? How could they kill people without "mocho" soldiers?


edit on 23-9-2010 by hdutton because: Lost train of thought



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I find it funny how the far left loathes the military, talks down to them continually


I am what you'd consider left, where is the evidence I ever spoke down to military men and women? Because I support the rights of patriotic serve and protect this country regardless of sexuality I hate the military? This is similar to the neocon buzz word years before, if we don't support the iraq war we hate our soldiers, if don't support adding billions more to the military budget we hate the military. Really now.



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...


Oh I agree, this was a 700 billion dollar military bill, an example of a bloated military budget. That being said, you along one others here are under the assumption once again that the Republicans voted against the bill because of the cost. That is not why the Republicans voted against it.



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Why do you assume that Republicans voted against this because of DADT? This bill included amnesty for illegal immigrants, which is a much much much much larger issue to Republicans, and a much larger issue in the polls for Americans today. This was the true reason for the lack of Republican support, not DADT. That was the smallest issue in the bill



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I find it funny how the far left loathes the military, talks down to them continually


I am what you'd consider left, where is the evidence I ever spoke down to military men and women? Because I support the rights of patriotic serve and protect this country regardless of sexuality I hate the military? This is similar to the neocon buzz word years before, if we don't support the iraq war we hate our soldiers, if don't support adding billions more to the military budget we hate the military. Really now.



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...


Oh I agree, this was a 700 billion dollar military bill, an example of a bloated military budget. That being said, you along one others here are under the assumption once again that the Republicans voted against the bill because of the cost. That is not why the Republicans voted against it.


Well I am glad you were on the floor during the bills debate so you could come and fill us all in as to why the republicans voted as they did.

And they can try to do away with DODT, but as one who has spent 5 years in the Marines (1994-1999), we didn't want them in our battalion then, nor did the officers. I highly doubt they want them in now.

You can order the military that they will accept openly gay recruits, but it isn't going to go well for them, should they decide they want to come out of the closet to the rest of the unit.


edit on 23-9-2010 by Darkrunner because: ADDITION




edit on 23-9-2010 by Darkrunner because: 2



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
Well I am glad you were on the floor during the bills debate so you could come and fill us all in as to why the republicans voted as they did.


Well they refuse to admit to their agenda of blocking DODT, so what is there to debate? How can I debate on the idea of racial supremacy with a closet racist? I can't because they refuse to admit how they really feel on the matter, doing so will only expose them further.


And they can try to do away with DODT, but as one who has spent 5 years in the Marines (1994-1999), we didn't want them in our battalion then, nor did the officers.


And how on earth would they or you had known whether you served with a gay individual? Not all gays are your run of the mill 'bird cage' stereotype. Gays in the military have essentially been silenced as to indicate whether they are gay or not, so I find it amusing that any marine, soldier or officer would insist against having gays around them. It would be more so interesting if you served with your fellow soldiers for years on end, the same men who had your back out in the field, who you consider a brother, somebody you depended your life with, and all of a sudden because they turn out to be gay, you judge them upon a totally different character. To me that only points to irrational thought and I have no doubt there are servicemen and women out there who think like this just as there are American citizens. After all, American soldiers are american citizens with opinions.

I know of many soldiers who only hold respect for their fellow brothers and sisters, those who served with them, who they depended their lives on, those brothers and sisters who just happen to be that little different, who happen to be gay, and who were removed from service because of it. These soldiers couldn't give a damn about who's gay and who's not, not when they need their lives to be depended on, not when they are on the field, and they sick to death of seeing soldiers being kicked out from the field over this silly military law that does absolutely nothing else but harm military numbers.


You can order the military that they will accept openly gay recruits


Obviously you cannot order soldiers to accept gays in the military, who said you can again? Although it would be awkward for the most homophobic of soldiers to find out a close brother of theirs who they had served with for years has turned out to be gay, and all of sudden they must change their attitude for the sake of moral BS. Well awkward is one way to describe it. Neither can you order gays to be open about who they are, but that will not be to say that gays cannot serve openly to protect this country as any other patriotic american citizen.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Anyone else notice that time after time, I ask Souther Guardian (the OP) to comment about the fact that the reason Republicans voted against this because of the larger issue of this bill including amnesty for illegal immigrants, and he won't even comment on it? He won't even acknowledge it. He wants to view Republicans as villians who voted against this because of DADT,but it was really the larger issue of the times we live in..... amnesty for illegal immigrants. They asked Reid to remove amnesty, he wouldn't so they voted against this bill. DADT was not the reason Republicans voted against this bill, amnesty was. The OP won't address this or even acknowledge it, regardless of repeated claims. A very obvious sign of the intellectually dishonest.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
Anyone else notice that time after time, I ask Souther Guardian (the OP) to comment about the fact that the reason Republicans voted against this because of the larger issue of this bill


And had you read through this thread you would have seen that I responded to this argument already, on the first page of this thread again afterwards. The dream act was pushed through by two republicans and one Democrat while gaining support from both Republicans and Democrats in 2007. The dream act is not the major concern here for the Republicans, it was not their major concern in voting against it.


They asked Reid to remove amnesty,


DODT was first ammended to the defense bill, Republicans objected to that and then demanded they add 7 ammendments of their own, Reid then responded by adding in the Dream act (which was pushed through by both Democrats and Republicans in 2007). This issue started when the Democrats ammended DADT to the bill, and if you had listened, many of the Republicans kept on insisting that we needed to consult with the military first over DADT before they supported it. This was a common response from them in voting against the bill.

So you can explain to me why when DODT was first ammended to the defense bill did Republicans object?


The OP won't address this


No, you just have failed to actually read my posts through this thread. Go back to the first page of the thread when I clearly addressed this argument, and forward on when I repeated myself.


edit on 24-9-2010 by Southern Guardian because: link fix



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


If you responded earlier, I apologize. In the future, please post a response to what someone was saying just referring them to read earlier posts.

Regarding what you just said, yes I know the DREAM act was co sponsored by two Republicans. Liberal Republicans at that. But it was also intended to be voted on, on its own, not added to a bill that Democrats thought Republicans would vote for (defense spending). The Republican party was much more liberal in 2007. If brought to vote then, it would have garnered a ton of Republican support. But it is also how liberal Republicans got back then that angered so many conservatives and spurred the tea party movement. Disillusioned conservatives, moderates and moderate democrats.

Just because 3+ years ago it was co sponsored by liberal Republicans means nothing in this political climate. Just as the fact that Clinton signed the DADT policy into law doesn't matter. Both parties are different than they were in both 2007 and under Clinton. Elected Republicans are feeling the wrath of their base due to their liberal ways under Bush and are being snapped back to their foundations. So them not supporting something co sponsored by two of them in 2007 really doesn't mean anything other than the Republicans were much more liberal back then.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Okay, I know this isn't entirely related so bear with me.

How does the military enforce "don't ask don't tell" inspite of the freedom of speach clause?

Basically, how did this get past the supreme court in the first place?



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
Okay, I know this isn't entirely related so bear with me.
How does the military enforce "don't ask don't tell" inspite of the freedom of speach clause?
Basically, how did this get past the supreme court in the first place?


Cuz the Constitution is just fer 'normal' folks.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
Okay, I know this isn't entirely related so bear with me.

How does the military enforce "don't ask don't tell" inspite of the freedom of speach clause?

Basically, how did this get past the supreme court in the first place?


Its tough to explain, but when in the military, many of your constitutional rights are void while under service. You are literally owed by the US govt and are legally bound to follow the orders of your commanding officers and commander in chief (President). Hence why you can also be thrown in prison for passing along info outside of the military. There is no freedom of speech which you are in the military. Also why soldiers that protest the war and won't follow orders can be thrown in prison. You are not a civilian when in the military. Completely different set of rules and laws you have to abide by.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnny2127
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

In the future, please post a response to what someone was saying


Why must I respond to the same argument time and time again? Why don't you next time take a minute or so to actually read the thread as opposed to me having to reply to broken records. There is a difference between somebody making a unique argument and somebody just not reading the thread and repeating the same thing as others.


Regarding what you just said, yes I know the DREAM act was co sponsored by two Republicans. Liberal Republicans at that.


Oh so now they are liberal Republicans? Wonderful.


But it was also intended to be voted on, on its own, not added to a bill that Democrats thought Republicans would vote for (defense spending).


They did before as Republicans had supported every other defense spending bill prior for the last what? 10 years or more? They only first objected when the defense bill came in with the DODT ammendment into the house. The vast majority of them opposed it outright, only 5 out of what? 177 Republicans in the house voted for it. This was before the dream act was ammended to the bill before the senate.

The vote against the defense spending bill was not at its core about the dream act. The dream act was only ammended following the passing of the defense spending bill in the house. After the defense bill with the DODT repeal passed and on its way to he senate, Republicans threatened to filibuster it, Reid responded by adding the Dream act to the bill. Was it politics in adding the Dream act? Yep. But that was not what sparked Republican resistence. When the bill failed to pass the senate, Republicans began stating their opposition specifically on the DODT repeal, claiming that this was not in the military's best interests. The Dream act was a political ploy added to the bill, it was not the core issue as to why Republicans voted against it.


The Republican party was much more liberal in 2007. If brought to vote then, it would have garnered a ton of Republican support. But it is also how liberal Republicans got back then that angered so many conservatives and spurred the tea party movement.


The Republican party has acted for the last 10 years with the full blessing of the conservative and republican voting population. In 2007 the Republicans still had strong support from conservative voters, their policies were still supported by the conservative population. If you can name me one piece of law 2007 or prior where Republicans passed where Democrats objected and the vast majority of conservatives objected or cared, that'd be much appreciated, because all I saw was silence, support or the act of defending from the conservative population over the Republican party during those years. Only by 2009 when this president was elected, when Republicans were at an all time low nation wide and even globally, did conservatives decide to pull a fuss. This was not about the actions of the republican party, this was about the loss of credibility over the republican party to which conservatives could no longer cover for. There was never a time during those years that I found the conservative population was vocal against the actions of Republicans, not prior to 2008 in the general election period, so please don't come to me about who's a 'liberal republican' because as far I saw it, they were Republicans during those years, they were never an issue prior to the elections.


Just because 3+ years ago it was co sponsored by liberal Republicans means nothing in this political climate. Just as the fact that Clinton signed the DADT policy into law doesn't matter.


Clinton signed the DADT policy into law in response to Reagans Defense directive 1332 which outright banned gays from the military, period. While we can blame Clinton for this policy (and some other things) as we can with all other presidents previously, the policy prior to Clinton under Reagan was more so discrimminatory.


Both parties are different than they were in both 2007 and under Clinton.

How are the Democrats different from the time under Clinton again? Can you give me examples of those differences? I will say that there are Democratic politicians in the tank with the Republicans, as for their actions as any different? I'd be curious as to specifics on your end.


Elected Republicans are feeling the wrath of their base due to their liberal ways under Bush


Which still does not make sense. How can Republicans be under wrath from the conservative base over the actions under Bush when conservatives largely supported those actions during those times? It makes absolutely no sense, unless the vast majority of the conservative population revealed themselves to be absolute hypocrites when it comes to support and voting, which I will readily agree with.



edit on 24-9-2010 by Southern Guardian because: fixy



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
Okay, I know this isn't entirely related so bear with me.

How does the military enforce "don't ask don't tell" inspite of the freedom of speach clause?

Basically, how did this get past the supreme court in the first place?


Well, interesting development there...


Margaret Witt, Air Force Major Discharged Under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' Ordered Reinstated A federal judge ruled Friday that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible in the latest legal setback to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Yes it is, I was actually going to post that update. Social progress will always come in due time, its a just matter of how long it can be delayed.



posted on Sep, 25 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Not sure, but I think I read that the judge was Bush appointed.
And on we go.



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Here's a fairly pithy response to to the issue at large from Sarah Silverman. That means there may be bad words, right? You have been warned, eh?




new topics




 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join