Today Bigotry has Won ...

@Edmund Do you really think you would find them signing up for military service? Use your brain man!

So Democrats can tack a policy amendment onto a funding bill and its ok but republicans can't make any amendments whatsoever and that's "just excuses"? Why don't they just make it a separate bill and you can have the public up and down vote you want.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is just a way to ignore the problem but does nothing to address the problem. Men and women don't bunk together for the purpose of discipline that the military is known for. The same reasoning would apply to gay or lesbians bunking together. Personally, I don't see how you could arrange it so that this wouldn't happen.

With straight men and women it's easy. Men in one facility, women in the other. The only thing I can think of is coed with a HIGH, HIGH amount of supervision to maintain the discipline the military requires. Either way, Don't Ask Don't Tell should not be repealed unless they simultaneously address the legitimate concern of maintaining discipline with the increased risk of fraternization on duty among officers. It should not be ignored or brushed off but rather addressed and put to bed (no pun intended).

Amen Molly123! Gay and Lesbian people have and are serving successfully in our military, as they do in many foreign countries around the world openly.

The bigots won this battle, they won't win the war.

"With straight men and women it's easy. Men in one facility, women in the other. The only thing I can think of is coed with a HIGH, HIGH amount of supervision to maintain the discipline the military requires. Either way, Don't Ask Don't Tell should not be repealed unless they simultaneously address the legitimate concern of maintaining discipline with the increased risk of fraternization on duty among officers. It should not be ignored or brushed off but rather addressed and put to bed (no pun intended)."

So basically what you are saying is that with DADT we don't have this problem because obviously gays and lesbians can't openly serve in the military. Unfortunately for that view gays and lesbians can serve freely in the military right now, just no openly. If the military is waiting for the repeal of DADT to fix your problem, they are WAY behind the curve.

It's bigotry pure and simple. Republicans always like to fall back on procedure when they want to hide something, now is no different. Who cares that they also blocked military funding at the same time just so they could take a stand against teh gay.

Molly hits it perfectly on the issue. If gays and lesbians want to die for this country and want to do it openly, who in the world are we (or Congress for that matter) to tell them that they can't?

"Many of these types would if they could but they can't so they won't and the security of this nation will be better for it."

What type would you be referring to edmund (why does that name sound familiar?)?

There is no mention for one very specific reason Natso, I was unaware of it. Thank you for pointing it out. I have heard nothing about the case that was decided on September 9. The media have not covered it, which goes right back to my other blog about the media failing us.

Though it does bring to question, if a court has already ruled DADT unconstitutional then why is Congress attempting to overturn DADT?

http://online.logcabin.org/dadt-9-9-2010-decision.pdf

That is the ruling, here is the Wikipedia entry on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States_of_America

edmund are you even aware that there are already gays and lesbians serving in the military? My guess is no by your posts.

The rule is an unneeded and bigoted rule. It is telling people that if they simply admit who they are they will get kicked out of the military, without benefits.

It has nothing to do with following the rule, it's masking who you are.

You know full well that every fear example you have rambled off will never happen but because of your bigotry towards gays you will continue to express that it will happen if DADT is overturned.

That's enough you two you are falling to edmund's level to attack and I will respectively ask everyone to not do that. I understand that edmund is back but that does not mean we need to return to his level of attacks. It was such a nice place for that near month he was gone. He is back and has returned as his normal baiting self. Don't fall for the trap.

I do wonder. Now that edmund is back does that mean that Senior is not far behind?

Mike,

You talk of returning to edmund's level of attacks, It didn't seem to me the level ever changed.

What was the point of this "repeal" of don't ask don't tell ammendment? Unless I misunderstand it, passing it wouldn't have repealed dadt until after the military had their show anyway, what does it matter if they do it now or later.

Also whomever made the point above made a valid one. Why doesn't Reid introduce this as a stand alone bill, then people could vote yes or no on the issue. If you're going to take a principled stand on something, take a stand, don't try to sneak in the back door.

Molly I never called you a troll and I apologize that my statement caused you to believe that I had.

How is an amendment a sneak in the back door measure SW? This was a military funding bill and the DADT is a military issue.

But I understand, you have to make those excuses.

"You talk of returning to edmund's level of attacks, It didn't seem to me the level ever changed."

Really? I thought it had been mildly peaceful since the troll had been kicked of the site. Admittedly there were run ins and name calling over the past month, but it wasn't anywhere near the levels it had been.

"But I understand, you have to make those excuses."

Who was talking of civility again Mr. Pot?

Why have you complained when Republicans try to sneak in unrelated ammendments into bills but are strangely quiet when Democrats do Mr. Pot?

What does DADT have to do with military funding?

I like how you don't challenge my points just make personal comments, where have I seen others talking about that Mr. Pot?

I actually challenged your point SW you either just ignored it or read over it ... again. Apparently I have gotten under your skin about something since you've devolved to name-calling again. But I will state it once again. I could just tell you to go back and re-read my post but you won't.

DADT is related because it is a military issue. DADT has nothing to do with anything else except for the military, so putting it in a military bill actually does make sense.

I challenge your points every single time SW, just because you miss them or choose to ignore them doesn't mean I don't. By the way when I do complain about Republicans putting unrelated amendments in bills it's usually because the amendment they are trying to get in would ultimately destroy that particular bill and the bill would fail, which has been their two year goal.

Then again, that is your motive on here, attempt to claim that someone is only making personal comments and not challenging points when they actually are, complaining about it in fact while at the very same moment you are doing the very thing you are complaining about. I know you are trying to project your issues onto me and claiming that I am the one doing it not yourself, but just to make sure you get this I will say it again:

DADT is related because it is a military issue. DADT has nothing to do with anything else except for the military, so putting it in a military bill actually does make sense.

Here are some of the other "unrelated" bills that were blocked by the filibuster yesterday:

* No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

* Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.

* Protection of child custody arrangements for parents who are members of the Armed Forces deployed in support of a contingency operation.

* Improvements to Department of Defense domestic violence programs.

* Department of Defense recognition of spouses of members of the Armed Forces.

* Department of Defense recognition of children of members of the Armed Forces.

* Enhancements to the Troops-to-Teachers Program.

* Fiscal year 2011 increase in military basic pay.

* Improving aural protection for members of the Armed Forces.

* Comprehensive policy on neurocognitive assessment by the military health care system.

* Authority to make excess nonlethal supplies available for domestic emergency assistance.

* Prohibition on the use of funds for the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

* Prohibition on the use of funds to modify or construct facilities in the United States to house detainees transferred from United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

* Prohibition on use of funds to give Miranda warnings to Al Qaeda terrorists.

Sorry, but in my last post at the beginning it should have read "unrelated" amendments not "unrelated" bills.

To be honest McCook and SW I would love for Reid to put the Repeal of DADT up for an up and down vote (not that it would ever get there as Republicans would filibuster it and call it a partisan tactic and both of you would parrot them despite saying that's what should be done now) because then we would find out exactly who are the bigots and who actually think that in the United States of America if you want to join the military, you can.

I'm curious to hear military veterans weigh in on this...

I'm a vet, and I agree with DADT. You (generalization of whoever reads this) should know why though before you assume that I am anti gay.

First off, I couldn't care less where your sexual persuasions lead you, but consider the history of violent attacks towards gays in just the last 10 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#2000.E2.80.932009

If you read the whole citation above, you likely noticed the very last US entry for June 30, 2009. Though not conclusive, a military man killed at his post, and the military blames DADT. Well if the guy was gay, how did anyone "know" unless he told on himself?

My concern with repeal of DADT is an escallation of the above type events only.

Mr. Pot,

The other ammendments you mentioned seemed to deal with funds which is what the bill is supposed to be. DADT issue would not affect the funding so it should be a separate issue. If you notice I didn't say whether I feel it should be repealed or not, yet you criticize me because after all you KNOW everything about me and my thoughts. I just feel it should be a separate issue.

If Congress brought forth a bill honestly that is intended to deal with DADT then, if Republicans filibustered it you would have a more convincing argument.

I'm reminded of the episode of the Simpsons when the gang wants to get a bill passed, sadly it was truly indicative of how Washington works.

The votes against this bill also reflected issues with Federal funding of abortions, something that has been illegal for quite some time...not that the Democrats care what the law says.

I do find it funny that so many of you anti-bigots just happen to be intensely bigoted against Christian beliefs and values, though. I guess the only BAD bigot is one you that holds a different opinion than your own, right? Just don't admit to yourself that you are a bigot, and you'll be Just Fine. :-)

Brian I am sorry I don't the buy the whole kicking gays out of the military to protect them argument. It's just a little to easy.

Fiscal conservatives are often rarely social conservatives Natso, you should know that. That argument rings hollow.

I see you are trying to be the new edmund SW with the name calling so until you can show some common decency and call me by my name nothing you says has any merit with me.

Quite the statement MrsSmith, though you just made most of it up. I do totally enjoy your attempt at calling people that don't like or have a problem with bigots the actual bigots. That's a classic.

But oh no I just went after a Conservative woman, how dare me. What's funny to me is that every single one of you that think it is so sexist and bigoted and well mean to call conservative women on their bs in the past have had no issues going after liberal women and gay women, often times calling the gay women by men's names. Hey SW since you are so big on calling people pot for what you percieve as their backwards or hypocritical stances why don't you go after these people for that? Oh wait, because you agree with them.

By the way I would like to know Natso where you got the definition of bigot from because the second one:

2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Is one of the worst examples of circle logic there are.

For the record SW why do refuse to answer the question about your belief of Obama's patriotism. Since you believe it is nothing but opinion, what is yours?

I will say this, at least the Republicans and Southern Democrats of the 60s allowed up and down votes on the Civil Rights Act and didn't cower behind the filibuster.

If you want to make excuses for their record breaking filibusters in the just two years that's fine but don't pretend that they are filibustering for some higher purpose. They are filibustering because they don't want real votes counted.

If you want to talk about true voter suppression and not just a sour grapes we lost the election to a black man conspiracy theory, take a look at Wisconsin:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/progresssive-group-alleges-gop-and-tea-party-effo...

Mike said... Brian I am sorry I don't the buy the whole kicking gays out of the military to protect them argument. It's just a little to easy.

Just for the record Mike, I didn't say to kick anybody out of the military. I said I support DADT and stated my reason. Big difference!

Mike,

I'm sorry I missed you questioning my beliefs in Obama's patriotism, I wasn't trying to avoid the situation.

I'd imagine he is as patriotic as the next president. I don't have any question about his patriotism. I may not agree with all his policies, honestly I've yet to find anyone with whom I don't disagree with at least some of the time, but I don't see why disagreement has to equate attacks or questioning people's motives as you have seemed to indicate in the past. Do you think extreme conservatives are not patriots? The beauty of a word like patriotism is that it means different things to different people. Everyone considers himself a patriot, except for the very few who consciously turn against their countries.

BTW instead of Mr. Pot would you prefer I call you a hypocrite, I thought I was being more fun with the Mr. Pot, but the word hypocrite gets bandied about regularly. Are you really so defensive that you consider my calling you Mr. Pot so offensive, but that calling people liars because they hold a different opinion than you is fine. If you like you can call me Mr. Kettle :) Or maybe I should just call you a liar all the time if you would respond to that better?

Are you talking to me about the filibusters? When did I say anything positive about filibusters or "make excuses" for filibusters? I tried to see if you could be directing that comment to anyone else but I don't see it.

If they are filibustering because they don't want the votes to count, could one not make the same argument that Democrats don't want an up or down vote on the issue, since they refuse to bring it up as a stand alone?

"Fiscal conservatives are often rarely social conservatives Natso, you should know that. That argument rings hollow."

So Mike, do you believe that only social conservatives can be conservatives? Why does the fact that they are gay mean they can't be conservative? Is this like hispanics in Nevada who can't vote for Republicans? I don't see how the argument is hollow at all, Natso merely pointed out that a group of hated conservatives were the ones who petitioned the court. Are there bigots.....sure. Does that mean anyone who is against it is a bigot? Not necessarily.

Why did you take Natso to task for his posting of a definition of BIGOTRY? If you read his post you would see that he was defining BIGOTRY not BIGOT, you kinda looked foolish making a big deal when a simple perusal would show you didn't read the post. Kinda like what you did with Brian Hoags post. Wow 2 in a row you didn't read but chose to argue against anyway, not good for the old batting average.

Brian,

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you becuase I've read your blogs and you seem like a nice guy, not an extremist like Mike or Sam, but Mike has a tendency to try to take what you say out of context or, as in this case, misinterpret you completely then attack you based on his misinterpretation rather than what you said. Be a good man, keep yourself above the fray, I'm only here because I am not a good man and I like to mess with Mike.

Brian what do you think DADT is? If you stay in the closet you can stay in the military. Yes, it forbids the military from seeking out gays to kick out, but the second someone comes out of the closet they can booted from the military for no real reason other than being gay.

I do apologize, from your statement "My concern with repeal of DADT is an escallation of the above type events only." It led me to believe that you were stating that without DADT in place and gays being able to openly serve in the military that the level of violence would rise, keep it in place and it doesn't happen. If that was not your stated purpose than I apologize.

Brian what do you think DADT is? If you stay in the closet you can stay in the military. Yes, it forbids the military from seeking out gays to kick out, but the second someone comes out of the closet they can booted from the military for no real reason other than being gay.

I do apologize, from your statement "My concern with repeal of DADT is an escallation of the above type events only." It led me to believe that you were stating that without DADT in place and gays being able to openly serve in the military that the level of violence would rise, keep it in place and it doesn't happen. If that was not your stated purpose than I apologize.

I don't know why that was doubly submitted and I apologize for that.

SW,

Let's take your first statement from your post:

"Fiscal conservatives are often rarely social conservatives Natso, you should know that. That argument rings hollow."

So Mike, do you believe that only social conservatives can be conservatives? Why does the fact that they are gay mean they can't be conservative? Is this like hispanics in Nevada who can't vote for Republicans? I don't see how the argument is hollow at all, Natso merely pointed out that a group of hated conservatives were the ones who petitioned the court. Are there bigots.....sure. Does that mean anyone who is against it is a bigot? Not necessarily."

Followed by a second quote from that same post:

"Mike has a tendency to try to take what you say out of context or, as in this case, misinterpret you completely then attack you based on his misinterpretation rather than what you said."

Do you see the utter disconnect you have with your own statements? You are criticizing me for something you did in the exact same post. Where in the world did you even comes up with the question. My simple statements was that fiscal conservatives were rarely social conservatives. I made no statement saying that only social conservatives could be conservatives. You dreamed that up all on your own.

So until you can actually refrain from doing that which you criticize others for doing, try not criticizing.

Then again should it really be surprising that you took one of my posts which were not directed at anyone in particular and attacked me because you felt that I directed at you? Really?

As far as the patriotism issue goes, you stated on the other blog that you felt that the president's patriotism was something that was an opinion, not to mention his religion. So my question was simply do you question his patriotism based on your statement that my stating that the President was patriotic was an opinion.

What's missing from this is that most Americans support the repeal of DADT, most military personnel support the repeal, the Pentagon supports the repeal. The only people seemingly not in favor of it are Republicans in Congress and social conservatives.

Who cares whether the amendment was added into a military funding bill or whether it should have been an up and down vote. Congress has shown once again that they really don't care what the American people want, they are only concerned about the lobbyists paying them and whether or not they can score enough votes to win. Do I stand my statement of bigotry? (To steal a line from Sarah Palin) You betcha.

Here is one answer to why Congress was acting to repeal even though a federal judge had ruled DADT to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately it also shows that Obama administration continuing the status quo of what's wrong with Washington.

The answer to put it simply is that without Congressional action and the executive branch's refusal it is up to the individual judge to set the timetable of the injunction:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/23/military.dadt/index.html?hpt=T2

Mike,

"As far as the patriotism issue goes, you stated on the other blog that you felt that the president's patriotism was something that was an opinion, not to mention his religion. So my question was simply do you question his patriotism based on your statement that my stating that the President was patriotic was an opinion."

Ahh, now I see why you are confused. The Presidents patriotism or religion are not the opinion. The opinion is the view of others about his patriotism or religion. So if someone, you for example, were to say the President is NOT patriotic that would be your opinion. You could be right or you could be wrong but whatever your opinion is, it is not a lie. I thought I answered your question above but I'll try again. It is MY OPINION that the President is patriotic as he sees it. I don't believe he has ever sworn allegiance to another nation nor is he working with the intent to undermine our nation. See how easy this would have been if you had just asked a question instead of making assumptions about what you "KNOW" I think. :) That's why I spend such an effort asking questions trying to understand what other people mean.

I can't find Natso's post to use for my argument so I'll have to try to recreate it from memory, any error is my own. If I remember correctly I was challenging your assumption that his argument was hollow although all he said was that the people who brought the suit were conservatives. I believe he challenged you in your assumption that all conservatives are ebil and was using that as a supporting point. So when you said the fact that fiscal conservatives are not social conservatives which made his argument false indicating that fiscal conservatives are either 1. not conservatives, or 2. not ebil. So in your opinion are only social conservatives wrong or are fiscal conservatives wrong as well?

I hardly think that rises to the level of you misquoting posters and taking the points out of context as you did with Brian.

You are simply wrong in this case. I did not misquote you then criticize you based on a misquoting. You may not have understood the point I was trying to make but I did not attribute to you things you did not say. It is fair to say that I can misunderstand but not that I misquote.

As far as the hypocrisy thing, sorry I just saw the thing about Mrs. Smith. I will once again mention that I am not the blog police who enforces what whacko conservatives say. I admit I am a hypocrite and challenge you do the same. However in this case, I honestly don't read what most of them say unless it was referenced later in a way I found interesting. You and your cohorts do quite well in pointing out the stupidity of MrsSmith on a regular basis I don't feel I need to. However as a way of extending an olive branch, anytime you want me to criticize one of the whacko conservatives please just ask me to and indicate where they said whatever so I can go back and read it. Fair?

Who was your filibuster remark aimed at? Please be honest. If it wasn't aimed at anyone why was it such a direct comment?

"If you want to make excuses for their record breaking filibusters" If this was a general comment, who do you think was making excuses. Forgive me if I thought it was directed at me because earlier you had accused me of making excuses and I think I was the only person who mentioned filibusters other than you. Oddly enough both of those words appear in a "general" comment when no one else made any mention of it.

"What's missing from this is that most Americans support the repeal of DADT, most military personnel support the repeal, the Pentagon supports the repeal. The only people seemingly not in favor of it are Republicans in Congress and social conservatives."

Did only Republicans in Congress vote against this? I don't know why you find it missing that people support something Congress doesn't. Since most people don't approve of what Congress is doing and they keep doing it anyway, why would you think that they care what people think?

The only reason that it was voted down is because the Dems tried tacking it onto the spending bill. Where, IMO it never belonged. What does this have to do with appropriations? It was strictly a transparent PR play to say that they would not approve funding without attaching this rider. Disgusting politics as usual.

It's funny, when Republicans tack on amendments on bills that have nothing to do with the bill it's nothing but silence from you guys. Then you make excuses why an amendment that strictly had to do with military affairs somehow had nothing to do with the military. Just how far back are you going to bend to excuse Republicans and what they do.

Mike,

"It's funny, when Republicans tack on amendments on bills that have nothing to do with the bill it's nothing but silence from you guys."

Try this one on for size Mr. Pot:

It's funny, when Democrats tack on amendments on bills that have nothing to do with the bill it's nothing but silence from you guys.

I agree with you Rikka.

Mike,

OK, I'll bite: Which one is the gay one? I'm ready for the big reveal.

The point, SW, which you and others have glossed over to make jokes is that it doesn't matter which one is gay. They all died fighting for their country, so who cares which one was gay. Maybe the one on the left or right was gay, maybe all three were gay, maybe none of them were gay. The point is they died doing something that most of us would never consider doing. Joining the military and putting their life on the line to protect our rights and liberties.

I argued with myself on whether to post that picture because I knew that the main point would be missed and instead crude and immature jokes would be made. I had hoped, though, that some maturity would come through and people would realize what the point was and either just reflect on it personally or make the comment on here.

Sadly I grossly overestimated sorely on that one. Sad.

Yes, yes SW I know, copy, paste, regurgitate, repeat. Nothing new.

It had everything to do with the military but you can't see the forest for the trees. I understand.

I would say that I am shocked, but really I'm not. But it is almost assured that the Fox Newsers of the world will make every attempt to paint him as a liberal.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/22/Bishop.long.sex.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=C1