IF HE CANT FIX EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW THEN HE WONT FIX ANYTHING EVER AM I RITE?
7/24/2010 4:13:30 AM
7/24/2010 4:32:59 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/28/888482/-Bill-ORielly,-John-Stossel-Come-Out-Against-DADT
7/28/2010 6:34:56 PM
ehe, they "came out" for DADT... see what they did there? hyuck hyuck
7/29/2010 8:16:30 PM
A small DADT related update:I had a chance to chat with her some, she seems like a nice gal, and would be a worth while addition to the military. She'll do well at Yale though I'm sure.Just out of curiosity what the goal numbers are for those physical fitness tests in those 3 areas for males of the same age?New Service Members United Ad:And the latest on the Fehrenbach guy the TheDuke mentioned that he's met:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/16/893577/-DADT:-Lt-Col-Fehrenbach-spared-from-discharge,-for-now
8/19/2010 2:51:31 PM
One other story that I should have included:http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/kutteles.dadt.son/?hpt=C2
8/20/2010 12:43:21 AM
holy shit, you actually put something into a thread that already existed. wow!
8/20/2010 12:49:32 AM
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=92EE7062-18FE-70B2-A8332B0A1A0D1FD7
8/21/2010 2:52:08 PM
two in a row! you are on a roll, man!
8/21/2010 2:56:17 PM
^What's with the trolling?[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 7:34 PM. Reason : .]
8/21/2010 7:33:56 PM
I'm trying some positive reinforcement, pal
8/21/2010 7:51:36 PM
If you're anti-words, then you can read only the bold part and still get the gist of it.
8/23/2010 1:35:56 PM
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/09/02/44668-army-launches-dont-ask-dont-tell-online-inbox/Kind of defeats the point of anonymity if you include a non-confidentiality disclaimer. I so look forward to the possible day when Burr is no longer a member of the senate armed services committee which was narrowly divided on deciding this issue.
9/4/2010 3:44:08 AM
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/09/13/reid-to-schedule-dont-ask-vote-next-week/
9/13/2010 9:10:27 PM
Vote happens tomorrow. Any ones guess as to whether they can break the filibuster. A lot of hopes rested with Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, but right now she is saying she wants to wait until after the midterm elections to vote, at which point there will be no chance of breaking the GOP filibuster. But she is under pressure. DADT repeal rally in Maine today:
9/20/2010 10:38:36 PM
God, I hope it passes.
9/21/2010 11:58:40 AM
Narrowly failed. Tyvm Senator Burr for representing NC so well. It wont be considered again until after the midterms, at which point there will be 0 chance of getting 60 votes. DADT is here to stay.[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]
9/21/2010 3:24:44 PM
Obama should fucking dig in his heels on this one, refusing to sign the authorization unless it passes with a repeal of DADT
9/21/2010 3:38:30 PM
Animal Farm"All pigs are created equal. But some pigs are created more equal"
9/21/2010 4:00:26 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/republicans-block-bill-to-lift-military-gay-ban/19642983?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%7C171984
9/21/2010 4:29:49 PM
My understanding is they called vote to try to repeal & to see where everyone stood. Once enough votes were in from the possible swing republicans who all voted against repeal, and once it was clear it couldn't be repealed he cut loose a few ppl on the failed vote, and procedurally had to vote against it himself to bring it up again (even so I blame everyone in the no column, they should have stood on principle even when it was clear it was a failed vote, & even if it would hurt them in the election, if they really meant it they would have). I'm not sure if that's is true. I don't see why he'd have to vote against it to be allowed to try to bring it up again, but I've heard that from several different sources. Not that it matters much, even if he does bring it up again it wont have enough support to pass with significantly more anti-dadt repeal candidates in the senate after the midterms. And to be clear, Reid deserves his fair share of the blame, I'm not disputing that.In the end though, I blame Burr the most. He is our Senator and he just voted against the will of his state.[Edited on September 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM. Reason : .]
9/21/2010 5:43:09 PM
It's surprisingly hard to Google, and I swear I saw it somewhere once, but basically if a bill fails, only a member who had voted against it may bring it up again, and that tactical onus falls on the party leaders; McConnell does this frequently too.
9/21/2010 6:30:47 PM
9/21/2010 6:49:57 PM
I'm glad it failed. this was a dirty way to try and accomplish this. If it's a good idea, then debate it on its own and let pass on its own.
9/21/2010 6:52:54 PM
it's only good when it's used to pass measures that worsen discrimination
9/21/2010 7:22:59 PM
9/22/2010 10:09:12 AM
This does a decent job of breaking down motivations, deals, and what happened from the vp/pres to legislatures etc if you're up for watching all 12 mins of it:Also this is happening on Friday:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012959125_apwamilitarygaystrial1stld.html
9/22/2010 3:10:56 PM
9/22/2010 8:39:23 PM
according to one wingnut, gays engage in more "touchy-feely" than straight men and therefore are unfit for service: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39069
9/24/2010 7:53:36 AM
10/12/2010 4:02:14 PM
anyone care to explain the legal process behind all of this in layman's terms?
10/12/2010 4:22:43 PM
While I hope this stands and DADT dies this is a weasely way for the administration to allow its demise. I wish they had the guts to just issue an order informing the military to just stop enforcing it until Congress repeals it.
10/12/2010 4:22:46 PM
That has been discussed here before. It is partly unsatisfactory since a subsequent administration could repeal it and any service members who came out of the closet could be prosecuted for violating a standing order whose execution had only been briefly suspended.
10/12/2010 4:27:17 PM
10/12/2010 6:22:25 PM
I've seen lots of people who are excited about this decision. But it isn't the final step. It is like getting excited that DADT repeal passed the Senate Armed Services Committee vote so that it could be voted on everyone. It still failed when voted on by everyone.Just as with the DOMA being ruled unconstitutional in MA, they waited the full 60 days they had to repeal (which today is the 60th day) and then appealed. Now it has years ahead of it of trying to work its way up to the supreme court and hopefully getting the right ruling there.Right now this ruling means nothing, just like the President's speeches against DADT mean nothing, until it results in something which is many years away with many road blocks ahead of it.
10/12/2010 7:17:31 PM
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/19/recruiters-can-accept-openly-gay-and-lesbian-candidates/
10/19/2010 4:05:16 PM
Interesting news...given how much money and manpower it takes to get a person from the recruiter's office and into active service (recruitment->MEPS->Basic->AFSC/MOS training), it seems that the Pentagon expects this repeal to permanent.
10/20/2010 2:15:10 AM
"permanent"^At least until tomorrow anyways.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/19/911792/-Judge-Phillips:-DADT-Still-Null-And-Void.-175-hours-and-counting.
10/20/2010 2:56:47 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/20/dont.ask.dont.tell/index.html?hpt=T1
10/20/2010 5:55:51 PM
And the request has been granted:http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/10/breaking-ninth-circuit-stays-d.html
10/20/2010 10:07:04 PM
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/18058/dadt-and-major-witt-the-third-act-is-about-to-begin"Quote from Judge Leighton's decision:"
11/23/2010 6:01:28 AM
As I expected, they waited until the last possible day, and made the appeal. But they are not seeking a stay of the reinstating after Witt won the last court case before it got appealed up to here. So she gets reinstated, but depending on how this appeal goes, she may get re-de-instated again.http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/11/23/Justice_Dept__Appeals_Witt_Case/
11/23/2010 9:43:20 PM
Senate just voted 57 - 40 against bringing to the floor the defense spending bill which included the DADT repeal.They're fine imposing colossal restrictions on local farmers with S.510, but are unwilling to let willing volunteers serve. GG guys.
12/9/2010 4:34:29 PM
word has it that they might try to bring it up in its own separate bill. i'd love for that to happen.
12/10/2010 8:19:05 PM
As you wanted, the separate bill was passed the senate procedural vote that required 60 votes to pass a filibuster. The actual vote has to come within no more than 30 hours and will only require a simple majority which is an easy threshold to pass, and then go to the President's desk relatively soon.---That "actual vote" that it will easily pass has now been scheduled for 3 pm today.[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM. Reason : 3 pm]
12/18/2010 12:08:09 PM
It should be pointed out that Burr voted against repeal as a standalone bill, and Hagan voted for it.
12/18/2010 1:11:04 PM
The vote is happening now, but it just officially passed the majority mark, so its passed.
12/18/2010 3:25:22 PM
I don't understand the big deal here and why civilians are so involved in military matters (meaning if you haven't served, then you won't really have an understanding except to go off of hearsay). Sexual conduct of any nature whether homosexual or heterosexual in a combat environment should be a big no-no. There's no other environment where more absolute focus is necessary and when people are running around chasing tail, it eventually leads to drama and chasms within the chain of command when things go south in that relationship.I don't know that serving openly gay or not is really going to change things, but with big changes usually comes big divisions within a group of people (or military unit, in this case). There's no room for big divisions within the military, especially in the midst of two wars and possible rising threats to mitigate.Regardless of how right or wrong you may feel about this matter, people feel very different ways about a great deal of subject matters, and asking them to set aside whatever personal principle is already asking a lot.Lt. Dan Choi made his decision to admit he is gay. He knew the law within the military and instead of waiting for this matter to be resolved in time (because he wasn't the one to initially raise the flag on DADT), he poorly decided to just go ahead and admit it and with poor timing to follow. There's a difference between a gamble and a risk. A risk involves acceptable and unacceptable losses and it's decided what is acceptable to lose to gain a higher achievement. A gamble is gain all or lose all. He gambled his career, and he lost.If he thought the military would allow him to break the law and still serve because they so desperately need arabic translators, he was mistaken.Now when the law is changed, that's different.You have to review history here: There was a time when the military had a difficult time with accepting new measures, and sometimes, that was met with resistance and sometimes violence. Such as blacks serving and then integrated into white units. Or women serving with the men.Great care should be considered here and politics removed.Objectively, is this the right time in the middle of two wars to re-visit DADT? I can give two shits if someone was gay or not, but my worry is when the bullets fly, we need to be one squad to meet the enemy or we'll end up as 12 individual dead bodies.[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM. Reason : a]
12/18/2010 4:27:10 PM
12/18/2010 4:38:53 PM
12/18/2010 5:12:45 PM