DADT Repealed! 65-31

[Karalysia]

I prefer Jon Stewart myself though lately he's be a little....meh.

 

[say1988]

I have some doubts about how serious Glenn Beck is myself.

The difference is that, even if Beck doesn't believe anything he says, he is saying it with the intent of being believed. Colbert is openly mocking the people who think he is serious.

And yeah, I generally prefer Stewart too, Colbert is often just too over the top.

 

[Tacitusitis]

I have some doubts about how serious Glenn Beck is myself.

Not me, that guy is broken on the inside. Colbert is an extremely and fundamentally decent man. Even the crazed bigot he plays on TV has been softened as more of his extreme Republicanism has been sourced to a comically titanic ignorance rather than deliberate foolishness or hatred.

 

[MobBoss]

I find reading hate sites such as FreeRepublic, Westboro Baptist Church, and GOP give me a good laugh. KKK.com is stupid.

They may give you a good laugh, but dont come here to talk about what they post there. I dont really wanna hear about it...and if I did...I would go there to read it.

 

[useless]

They all supported DADT...

 

[JollyRoger]

They may give you a good laugh, but dont come here to talk about what they post there. I dont really wanna hear about it...and if I did...I would go there to read it.

Posted by the guy that brings us what he reads from roseannebarr.com.

 

[GamezRule]

Apparently everybody seemed to miss me putting GOP up as a hate sight.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Apparently everybody seemed to miss me putting GOP up as a hate sight.

I will safely assume that is a joke...

 

[Tacitusitis]

Posted by the guy that brings us what he reads from roseannebarr.com.

Hey at least Mobby isn't a birther.

But yeah, MB, apart from you not spending your time making "Go back to Kenya" signs, I don't see much daylight between you and the average Freeper on the issues.

2012 - Romney? Palin? Huckster?

 

[Karalysia]

Apparently everybody seemed to miss me putting GOP up as a hate sight.

We're all in agreement on that matter.

 

[BasketCase]

Wow. Six Republicans did the right thing, instead of voting along party lines as they almost always have recently. Very impressive.

A much more pertinent question would be this: why did sixty-five Democrats spend the last two years refusing to do (what you perceive as) the right thing.....?

I'll venture a guess. Seeing as how this repeal happened after The Shellacking, I theorize that the Democrats finally realized they're losing favor with The American Voter and decided they had to do something to get it back. Pity for them--they just did the wrong "something".

 

[Gustave5436]

A much more pertinent question would be this: why did sixty-five Democrats spend the last two years refusing to do (what you perceive as) the right thing.....?

The Democratic party is much more conservative than most people seem to think. The GOP weren't the only ones hijacked by the right after the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

 

[say1988]

A much more pertinent question would be this: why did sixty-five Democrats spend the last two years refusing to do (what you perceive as) the right thing.....?

I'll venture a guess. Seeing as how this repeal happened after The Shellacking, I theorize that the Democrats finally realized they're losing favor with The American Voter and decided they had to do something to get it back. Pity for them--they just did the wrong "something".

I think you need to practice your numbers. Either that or you are stuck in 1967.
And the Democrats had been pushing this legislation, but it was being blocked by the Republicans, and as I noted that it was 2 Republican Senators who were re-elected and 3 who were not up for election and 1 who anounced his retirement 2009, that made a difference after the election. The whole "its only because they lost the election" is BS.

 

[BasketCase]

And the Democrats had been pushing this legislation, but it was being blocked by the Republicans

Wrong. For the last two years, the Republicans were never able to block anything (though not for lack of trying!)--THE DEMOCRATS HAD A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY. Just about everything that was blocked for the last two years was blocked by DEMOCRATS.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, technically, the Republicans were still essential to any blocking measures. Their collusion was necessary

 

[Ajidica]

Wrong. For the last two years, the Republicans were never able to block anything (though not for lack of trying!)--THE DEMOCRATS HAD A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY. Just about everything that was blocked for the last two years was blocked by DEMOCRATS.

The Democrats aren't some Borg-like hive mind. I'm sure that there was a signifigant number of democrats who were iffy about repealing DADT. The study and testimony by the Joint Chief dissuaded them.

 

[say1988]

For the last two years, the Republicans were never able to block anything (though not for lack of trying!)--THE DEMOCRATS HAD A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY.

Can we learn to count? 59 is not equal to or greater than 60.
It was July 2009 when the 60th Cemocratic senator was allowed to sit and said supermajority was lost in February, lasting 7 months.
And note that in September, 56 Democratic Senators voted for cloture on legislation essentially identical to this. 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat changed their vote after the election (8 Republicans for the actual vote).

 

[choxorn]

Wrong. For the last two years, the Republicans were never able to block anything (though not for lack of trying!)--THE DEMOCRATS HAD A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY. Just about everything that was blocked for the last two years was blocked by DEMOCRATS.

Not for 2 years. They had 58 Democrats and 2 Independents from July 7, 2009 (when Al Franken took office) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office). That's 7 months. Actually, 6 months, since there was a one-month gap between Ted Kennedy's death and Paul Kirk taking office, in which there were only 57 Democratic Senators. And remember, Two Independents. One, Bernie Sanders, is left of the majority of Democrats, so he of course would vote with them most of the time, but the other is Joe Lieberman, who doesn't exactly scream "Democrat."

 

[Formaldehyde]

A much more pertinent question would be this: why did sixty-five Democrats spend the last two years refusing to do (what you perceive as) the right thing.....?

Because bigotry and homophobia isn't exclusively a problem with those from the far-right? Because they were trying to gain political favor with some of their constituents?

I'll venture a guess. Seeing as how this repeal happened after The Shellacking, I theorize that the Democrats finally realized they're losing favor with The American Voter and decided they had to do something to get it back. Pity for them--they just did the wrong "something".

Seeing that the vast majority if Americans approve of this measure, I think you have that backwards. How would you explain so many Republicans being opposed to the will of the people? And how do you explain that these Democrats who now voted to abolish DADT have been opposed to this absurd enforcement by some commanding officers long before the so-called "shellacking"?

The Democrats aren't some Borg-like hive mind.

Indeed. I really can't see how anybody could be supportive of the tactics of the Republican senators, especially given that they run so contrary to the wishes of their own constituents.

 

[Incodcito]

The Democrats aren't some Borg-like hive mind. I'm sure that there was a signifigant number of democrats who were iffy about repealing DADT. The study and testimony by the Joint Chief dissuaded them.

I don't think it dissuaded many Democrats from opposition so much as it gave Democrats political cover to do what they believed was right, along with the few Republicans who supported it.