Montana GOP clings to homophobia, despite Lawrence v. Texas, Gryczan v. Montana, and even the embarrassment of some more-enlightened Republicans:
Ironic, that, considering that most of them are homosexual. 
I donât like homosexuals any more than you do. But there isnât anything to be phobic about. Usually I lay out traps in the corners of my kitchen and let the chemicals do their thing. Maybe its a good thing to make a law against them. Mind you, the homosexuals in Taiwan are far bigger than the ones in my hometown, San Francisco. I mean, they are THIS BIG! Iâm gonna start naming them if they keep creeping into my kitchen!
What?
Republican Senators blocking repeal of ban on gays in military:
And there are those who claim that Republicans (as a group) arenât anti-gay. 
[quote=âChrisâ]
And there are those who claim that Republicans (as a group) arenât anti-gay. [/quote]
As they say, youâre either with us or against us.
If youâve ever seen two gay men arguing and getting into a fist fight, youâll know for a fact that they would be perfect for defending anything. âTake no prisonersâ springs to mindâŚ
A stereotype maybe, but no worse than the one that all gay men wear pink and are camper than a row of tents.
Shouldnât the US welcome anyone who wants to protect their country whatever they get up to behind closed doors?
Donât oversimplify. Donât mislead:
[quote]Initially, advocates had thought that Democrats might win the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP objections and advance the bill. Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Maine Republican, was seen as a crucial vote because she supports overturning the ban.
But Collins ultimately sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that the bill shouldnât advance because Republicans werenât given sufficient chance to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.
Democrats also failed to keep all of their party members in line. Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both of Arkansas, voted with Republicans to scuttle the bill. The vote was 56-43, four short of the 60 required to advance under Senate rules.
Lincoln said she objected to the limits on debate and wanted a chance to offer amendments that would benefit her state. In a statement, Pryor said the bill deserved more serious debate than was being allowed.[/quote]
Lincoln voted no because she thinks she has some chance of getting reelected if she acts like a Republican, lol. She has zero chance of being reelected, but is probably just grasping at anything that she can say is âbenefiting her state.â WTF could be in a bill repealing DADT that would benefit her state? The poor thingâŚthey all get even more pathetic on the way out.
Lincoln said today âPander, panderâŚpander. PLEASE donât fire meâŚIâll be anyone you WANT me to be!!!â
Blanche Lincoln is a perennial DINO. Begone with her.
The real reason DADT wasnât repealed may just as well have been because Sociocrats refuse to govern from the middle rather than because of homophobia. Weâll probably never know for sure because itâs so difficult for Americans of any stripe to deal with such issues in a reasoned, balanced way these days.
Sociocrats? Who are they? Given that there is only one socialist in all of Congress (namely Bernie Sanders)âŚ
Govern from the middle? Hey, the Dems have been governing from the center right.
[quote=âChrisâ]
Govern from the middle? Hey, the Dems have been governing from the center right.[/quote]
Not according to the majority of Americans, who think the Dems have been governing from left of center. Thatâs neither here nor there though.
Perhaps if it was a straight up and down vote on repealing DADT youâd have a better shot. Tacking it on the defense bill at the last minute didnât go over well, neither did adding the DREAM act to a defense bill.
[quote=âlbksigâ][quote=âChrisâ]
Govern from the middle? Hey, the Dems have been governing from the center right.[/quote]
Not according to the majority of Americans, who think the Dems have been governing from left of center.[/quote]
Only because theyâve been tricked into thinking so by the media.
I canât believe Iâm agreeing with lbksigâŚbut I donât like the way Reid has been trying to get things done, either. Why didnât they just do a straight-up (no pun intended) vote on DADT? By putting it on a spending bill, they made it look like a pressure move even if that wasnât the intention. And WTF are they doing trying to move past the president on this? Didnât he ask for time to work with the military on this? He already has Gates working on it. If they would just let the process play out, and they can get high-ranking military people on their side after Dec 1, this will pass. They lost gay-friendly votes on this because of dirty politics.
I am not a repub, and I hate DADTâŚand yet this feels like Reidâs fault to me. He sucks.
[quote=âlbksigâ][quote=âChrisâ]
Govern from the middle? Hey, the Dems have been governing from the center right.[/quote]
Not according to the majority of Americans, who think the Dems have been governing from left of center. Thatâs neither here nor there though.
Perhaps if it was a straight up and down vote on repealing DADT youâd have a better shot. Tacking it on the defense bill at the last minute didnât go over well, neither did adding the DREAM act to a defense bill.[/quote]
[quote=âsuiyuan31â]I canât believe Iâm agreeing with lbksigâŚbut I donât like the way Reid has been trying to get things done, either. Why didnât they just do a straight-up (no pun intended) vote on DADT? By putting it on a spending bill, they made it look like a pressure move even if that wasnât the intention. And WTF are they doing trying to move past the president on this? Didnât he ask for time to work with the military on this? He already has Gates working on it. If they would just let the process play out, and they can get high-ranking military people on their side after Dec 1, this will pass. They lost gay-friendly votes on this because of dirty politics.
I am not a repub, and I hate DADTâŚand yet this feels like Reidâs fault to me. He sucks.[/quote]
I do concede that it wasnât the right way to pass a bill. Indeed, I oppose mixing unrelated bills together.
Reid does suck. Someone else should have been chosen to be Senate Majority Leader. Someone with backbone.
Sociocrats? Who are they? Given that there is only one socialist in all of Congress (namely Bernie Sanders)âŚ
Govern from the middle? Hey, the Dems have been governing from the center right.[/quote]
âSociocratsâ are left-wing Democrats. I use the term because I have a hard time calling anyone a âdemocratâ who harbors a barely concealed disdain for the will of the people and a barely controlled impatience with the democratic process because they themselves know far better than the people how their country should be run. Sociocrats are distinguished by their belief that Congress consists only of a âcenterâ, a right wing and a far right wing. In other words, no left wing of any significance. Would you, for example, acknowledge that thereâs any significant political left wing in Congress or is it all just âcenterâ and right wing from your perspective?
Now the overall tone of his statement is positive. But that last bit is funny. âOr maybe you should, I donât know.â
Thatâs all fine and dandy in theory, but in practice, might it be that what you call Sociocrats are fighting for the very opposite of what you are arguing? There would be no reason to fight to repeal laws that single out specific groups if those laws had never been passed in the first place. Sociocrats, as you define them, would be the same people who fought for womenâs suffrage, desegregation, and the ending of DADT. Indeed, I find it hard to hide my disdain for an American public that 40 years ago was dead set against desegregation of schools.
The argument that there are âactivist judgesâ out trying to legislate from the bench is a tired one. This is the same argument, to the letter, people were using during Brown v Board of Education. The people in favor of that ruling were also said to be having a disdain for the will of the people. Do you really want to use the argument of George Wallace?
If there were not so many bigoted laws, there would be no âSociocrats.â
Edit: And if the will of the people is so important for DADT, then I donât understand your point in this context. The last poll done shows that more than 60% of say DADT is discriminatory. Every poll I have seen over the last two years shows an overwhelming majority think it should be overturned (one poll shows even 66% of self-identified conservatives). If you think the military personnel are more important, only 37% of those surveyed in 2006 said they thought gay people should be banned from open service. So who are the politicians ignoring the people?
Sociocrats? Who are they? Given that there is only one socialist in all of Congress (namely Bernie Sanders)âŚ
Govern from the middle? Hey, the Dems have been governing from the center right.[/quote]
âSociocratsâ are left-wing Democrats. I use the term because I have a hard time calling anyone a âdemocratâ who harbors a barely concealed disdain for the will of the people and a barely controlled impatience with the democratic process because they themselves know far better than the people how their country should be run. Sociocrats are distinguished by their belief that Congress consists only of a âcenterâ, a right wing and a far right wing. In other words, no left wing of any significance. Would you, for example, acknowledge that thereâs any significant political left wing in Congress or is it all just âcenterâ and right wing from your perspective?[/quote]
Itâs interesting how many people who are âmoralâ and think homosexuality is a sin [might] turn out to be so-called sinners or at least hypocrites. case in point: âBishopâ Eddie Long
interesting how people in the comments come down on certain sides:
a. Believe in God, the Church, and itâs bad people out to get us. Ignore the possibility that 1 man, not the Christianity itself, is fallible.
b. Heâs black! this is a racial attack on black men with money and power. Ignore possibility that this is a man, white or black, who could lie to get money and power.
c. Heâs a hypocrite and the Church is a scam. Ignore possibility that people are out to scam/blackmail people in positions of wealth and authority.
[quote=âsuiyuan31â]Thatâs all fine and dandy in theory, but in practice, might it be that what you call Sociocrats are fighting for the very opposite of what you are arguing? There would be no reason to fight to repeal laws that single out specific groups if those laws had never been passed in the first place. Sociocrats, as you define them, would be the same people who fought for womenâs suffrage, desegregation, and the ending of DADT. Indeed, I find it hard to hide my disdain for an American public that 40 years ago was dead set against desegregation of schools.
The argument that there are âactivist judgesâ out trying to legislate from the bench is a tired one. This is the same argument, to the letter, people were using during Brown v Board of Education. The people in favor of that ruling were also said to be having a disdain for the will of the people. Do you really want to use the argument of George Wallace?
If there were not so many bigoted laws, there would be no âSociocrats.â
Edit: And if the will of the people is so important for DADT, then I donât understand your point in this context. The last poll done shows that more than 60% of say DADT is discriminatory. Every poll I have seen over the last two years shows an overwhelming majority think it should be overturned (one poll shows even 66% of self-identified conservatives). If you think the military personnel are more important, only 37% of those surveyed in 2006 said they thought gay people should be banned from open service. So who are the politicians ignoring the people?[/quote]
If the majority of American people (myself included) want DADT repealed and âdemocratsâ failed to do so then my point is maybe itâs because they failed to govern from the center by larding up their legislation with a left-wing agenda and attempting to railroad it through Congress without sufficient debate.
Question to you. Do you think thereâs a significant left wing in Congress or only a center and right wing?