BREAKING: Senate Republicans block repeal of DADT

[beneficii]

of course, the GOP will be mocked for standing up for what is right, as it is written:

1 Pet 4:4 "They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead."

Mu.

[beneficii]

Yeah, quoting the Bible is a great argument against it.

it either is or it isn't, but the most elusive aspect of jmfcst is his apathy toward a basic fact that he even must know: the GOP's action in this case has less than nothing to do with 1 Peter 4:4-5.  he would likely reply that this doesn't matter, as even if the GOP's stance on the side of Light in this case is incidental, the fact that they are being "mocked" for it is suggestive of our movement towards the End Times.

1 Peter 4:4-5 has EVERYTHING to do with this since the context of the verse is in regard to immorality – that immoral people think it strange you don’t agree with them, and they heap abuse on you due to your stand.

Now, that doesn’t mean I believe most of GOP elected officials care anything about morality, a good portion voted against repeal simply because they’re afraid of people like me voting them out of office in the next primary.  So, give me the credit for this vote.

Mu.  Because of mu, you have contributed to keeping up something that has harmed the military and has kept qualified individuals from serving.

[beneficii]

Mu.  Because of mu, you have contributed to keeping up something that has harmed the military and has kept qualified individuals from serving.

"mu"?!  Oh, I get it...[clears throat] Baa-ram-ewe. Baa-ram-ewe. To your breed, your fleece, your clan be true. Sheep be true. Baa-ram-ewe.

You're raving.

[beneficii]

Eh, gay people are more likely than not going to spend an eternity suffering for an offense that really (IMO) doesn't terribly warrant such a punishment. Might as well let them be happy and do what they want in this world (provided they can maintain a professional decorum) since they're basically screwed in the long-run for basically being born unlucky. It sucks that homosexuality is a sin, but what do you want us to do? Ask God to re-write the bible?

well, we'll just have to agree to disagree.  carry on.

It looks like you're finally starting to realize that not everyone thinks the Bible is the literal word of truth, and that just posting a Bible verse as though it answers everyone's question settles the issue.

[beneficii]

Here's the thing... you guys are acting like DADT is the only thing in this bill.  It's 849 pages long... if Reid really wants this to pass, he would allow for the Republicans to have some amendments to it.  It's only fair.

Reid wasn't blocking the GOP from adding amendments to the bill.  The issue was over the time allotted for the bill.  The GOP was demanding a ton of time to add amendments and no agreement was made about exactly how much time would be allotted.   Collins did vote for repeal.

One thing to note is it seems the DADT will get a stand alone vote, its something Collins and Lieberman are working on and Reid has said he will support bringing it to the floor and while no timetable is set when a vote will be held, it will be prior to the lame duck session ending.  

That's good to hear.

[beneficii]

Here's the thing... you guys are acting like DADT is the only thing in this bill.  It's 849 pages long... if Reid really wants this to pass, he would allow for the Republicans to have some amendments to it.  It's only fair.

Reid wasn't blocking the GOP from adding amendments to the bill.  The issue was over the time allotted for the bill.  The GOP was demanding a ton of time to add amendments and no agreement was made about exactly how much time would be allotted.   Collins did vote for repeal.

One thing to note is it seems the DADT will get a stand alone vote, its something Collins and Lieberman are working on and Reid has said he will support bringing it to the floor and while no timetable is set when a vote will be held, it will be prior to the lame duck session ending.  

Why does the GOP even bother making these lame excuses? It about amendments or budgeting or that I can't do votes on Tuesdays on months with an r in them. It's perfectly obvious where they stand.

If DADT repeal comes back for a vote and a lot of Republicans cross over to vote for it, I think it would all be fine.  The problem is that the DADT repeal has gotten caught in the crossfire over other issues, namely the tax cuts.

[beneficii]

In that case, why did Scott Brown vote against invoking cloture, when he has previously said he will support the repeal of DADT?

I don't see why Reid is trying to repeal DADT with this bill.  If he did it on its own, simply amending 10 U.S.C. § 654, I think it'd easily pass.

Republicans will not allow any bills to come to the Senate floor in the lame duck session until the Senate passes a tax bill and continuing resolution to fund the government.  Collins seems to have forgotten this, but it didn't matter.  Given who will control the House next year, it is a very good strategy for Republicans - running out the clock on the Democratic agenda, largely (but not exclusively) featuring wish list of goodies for their special interest groups that don't stand a chance of passing the House next year. 

Democrats don't like this and have resorted to call Republicans and the President names, but elections have consequences.

http://wglb-tv.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-cbs-poll-repeal-dadt-says-31.html

[beneficii]

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.

[beneficii]

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.

We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.

[beneficii]

Couldn't the military separate gays into their own special unit? Women are already mostly separated from men, separate bunks, showers.

They don't do that in several other NATO countries and Israel, despite the fact that gays may serve openly; there is no evidence of any issues with unit cohesion, morale, or readiness in those countries' services.

We're talking about the US military. Co-ed units do not exist, should mixed hetero/homosexual units exist? I have no problem with the military separating behaviors, like men/women.

Mixed orientation units exist in most NATO and Israel militaries, and there aren't any issues.  I see no reason why the U.S. military should be any different.

So they have co-ed units in NATO and Israel?

[beneficii]

Well States the blacks could just paint themselves white so that they could be "normal" like you want them.   After all, that's essentially what you're asking gay and lesbian men and women to do.

LOL, you're an idiot.

So then you fully support co-ed military units? Quit making up lies and answer the question.

For the five hundredth time, homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR it's not the same as race.

Mu.

[beneficii]

True, heterosexual sex isn't a behavior either. Guess your post dodges mean I'm right again.

Mu.

[beneficii]

Nope.  It is a third option to "yes" or "no," meaning that you consider the questioner's point to be either irrelevant or to be thoroughly constructed with questionable or incorrect assumptions, but where you realize you're not getting paid to play surgeon with their points.  It is, in my view, similar to the concept of "not even wrong."

[beneficii]

My prediction is at least 65-35 passage, if not 70-30 as a stand-alone bill.

65-35?  that's 7 out of 42 GOP Senators....no way.  every GOP member knows whoever votes for repeal of DADT will be primaried.  at most, you'll have 2-3 GOP defections.  The GOP is simply trying to stall until January, when there wont be a snow ball's chance of this passing.  They should be honest and state their opposition.

but, again, probably only half of the GOP Senators are social conservatives at heart.

1. Collins
2. Snowe
3. Brown
4. Murkowski
5. Graham
6. Hatch
7. Paul

That's at least 7.

Paul won't actually be sworn in until January though, right?

Sorry, I was thinking next session, but they'd need more than 7 by that point.  But that list was just the first 7 that came to my mind.  I think there are more out there, those are just some that I'm nearly positive would vote for it.

Keep in ming next session it would require it to pass in the House again, and that sure as hell isn't going to happen.

There's enough moderates in the House, for sure for it to pass.

Would the House leadership bring it to the floor next Congress?

[beneficii]

My prediction is at least 65-35 passage, if not 70-30 as a stand-alone bill.

65-35?  that's 7 out of 42 GOP Senators....no way.  every GOP member knows whoever votes for repeal of DADT will be primaried.  at most, you'll have 2-3 GOP defections.  The GOP is simply trying to stall until January, when there wont be a snow ball's chance of this passing.  They should be honest and state their opposition.

but, again, probably only half of the GOP Senators are social conservatives at heart.

1. Collins
2. Snowe
3. Brown
4. Murkowski
5. Graham
6. Hatch
7. Paul

That's at least 7.

Paul won't actually be sworn in until January though, right?

Sorry, I was thinking next session, but they'd need more than 7 by that point.  But that list was just the first 7 that came to my mind.  I think there are more out there, those are just some that I'm nearly positive would vote for it.

Keep in ming next session it would require it to pass in the House again, and that sure as hell isn't going to happen.

There's enough moderates in the House, for sure for it to pass.

LMAO.   You really have no clue what has happened to your party do you??

Only FIVE Republicans in the House voted for the Repeal when Patrick Murphy introduced it, FIVE, two of them were Cao & Dijou who will no longer be in the House (Biggert, Paul & Ros-Lehtinen) were the other three. 

No way in hell does a repeal pass in the House next session.

Because the Republicans will be the majority party, there will probably be more moderates.  Still, I don't think there's any guarantee any repeal of DADT would be brought to the floor.

[beneficii]

Smash, much of the objection there was that that DoD's report had yet to come out.  Now that it's out, I think we'll see more Republicans vote for it.

Good point.