DADT Likely to Be Part of Defense Bill

Repealing "don't ask, don't tell" will likely be included as part of next year's Department of Defense authorization bill in both chambers of Congress, Congressman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Wednesday.

[equalityboy81]

I just want DADT repealed period any way they can do it without harming anyone or anything.

[Robert]

I'll believe it when I see it.
Too bad the military doesn't have the ability to just enforce the bill as it is written.

[ScottyMatic]

An old saying goes, "There are two things which you never want people to see how they're being made: laws and sausages."

It's stunning how much legislation is so politically charged that the only way for politicians to survive it's passage is to weave it into something else which they can argue they "absolutely had to vote for." The recent federal hate crimes legislation was passed this same way--by embedding it into a "must-pass" defense spending bill.

It's really the perfect way to repeal DADT, and to do it with as little fanfare as possible, so politicians can stay in their closets on the issue, and not jeopardize support from their conservative constituencies.

Ironic, isn't it? So long as you let them buy bullets and bombs, they'll pretty much give you anything else you want.

[WeTheSheeple]

This time it's actually appropriate to have the repeal of DADT as part of the 2011 defense spending, considering how much it cost to enforce DADT.

What's really great is the GOPosaurs will be on record for a SECOND time voting "against our troops", just like they did this year.

The Dems really need to make that point in ads coming up to the 2010 elections. Afterall, wasn't it those same hypocritical repubes who accused the Dems of being unpatriotic if they voted against funding the war in Iraq.

Payback, gotta love it.

[BS Detector]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

This time it's actually appropriate to have the repeal of DADT as part of the 2011 defense spending, considering how much it cost to enforce DADT.
What's really great is the GOPosaurs will be on record for a SECOND time voting "against our troops", just like they did this year.
The Dems really need to make that point in ads coming up to the 2010 elections. Afterall, wasn't it those same hypocritical repubes who accused the Dems of being unpatriotic if they voted against funding the war in Iraq.
Payback, gotta love it.

Not that you're totally and obviously biased (what a surprise), but wasn't DADT instituted during the Clinton Administration?

And when you stop using adolescent terms like "repubes" maybe then you will be treated like a big person rather than a jerk kid.(I don't expect that to happen in the forseeable future.)

[WeTheSheeple]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text> Not that you're totally and obviously biased (what a surprise), but wasn't DADT instituted during the Clinton Administration?
And when you stop using adolescent terms like "repubes" maybe then you will be treated like a big person rather than a jerk kid.(I don't expect that to happen in the forseeable future.)

Yes I'm biased, that comes from serving 20+ years and having to put up with crap like DADT.

I was simply pointing out the typical hypocrisy amongst the REPUBES who claimed anyone voting against a defense bill was voting against the troops, EXCEPT of course when it's the REPUBES doing it.

[writewingproxyco ntin]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text> Not that you're totally and obviously biased (what a surprise), but wasn't DADT instituted during the Clinton Administration?

Uh oh, my BS Spreader detector just went off.

This twisted queen must be a gay Republikkkan, as the above is a typical trope from them.

Clinton settled on DADT Don't Pursue - get the name right, bigot - to head off stone age cretins like Thurmond, and other racist fundies, who wanted an outright, total ban on homosexual service members, open or closeted.

The insinuation that Democratic policies on g/l issues are worse or even comparable to the homophobically jihadding Republikkkan Party is insane beyond words. Pure, unadulterated disingenuousness.

[Net Nanny]

writewingproxycontin wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh oh, my BS Spreader detector just went off.
This twisted queen must be a gay Republikkkan, as the above is a typical trope from them.
Clinton settled on DADT Don't Pursue - get the name right, bigot - to head off stone age cretins like Thurmond, and other racist fundies, who wanted an outright, total ban on homosexual service members, open or closeted.
The insinuation that Democratic policies on g/l issues are worse or even comparable to the homophobically jihadding Republikkkan Party is insane beyond words. Pure, unadulterated disingenuousness.

A Democratic president signed DADT and DOMA into law ..... now we have Obama's justice department defending DOMA (emphatically).

Where was Obama's support for Prop 8 or Maine or that's right he's been silent.

I love the timing of Bawney's announcement .... The LGBT just this week sent out a missive to halt all donations to the DNC until DADT and DOMA are repealed ..... his statement was to throw the LGBT community a bone so their money doesn't go away.

What a sleeze!

[writewingproxyco ntin]

Net Nanny wrote:

<quoted text>
A Democratic president signed DADT and DOMA into law ..... now we have Obama's justice department defending DOMA (emphatically).
Where was Obama's support for Prop 8 or Maine or that's right he's been silent.
I love the timing of Bawney's announcement .... The LGBT just this week sent out a missive to halt all donations to the DNC until DADT and DOMA are repealed ..... his statement was to throw the LGBT community a bone so their money doesn't go away.
What a sleeze!

We already discussed Clinton's desire to head off the racists and homophobes like Thurmond and Helms. Clinton originally wanted to lift the ban, and settled to avoid the total ban the backlash-bigots tried for.

I'm not disappointed in Obama yet, although many of the things you mention are galling to gays and lesbians, not to you lying xstains.

Any pressure the non sexually disordered can put on the government to expand g/l/b/t rights is good. That's the way it's supposed to work. Due to all you bigots running around social change is difficult to achieve, and sometimes hard for politicians to lead on.

Glad to hear you're so concerned about our (temporary) plight. You liar. Praiz!

[JohnInToronto]

ScottyMatic wrote:

An old saying goes, "There are two things which you never want people to see how they're being made: laws and sausages."
It's stunning how much legislation is so politically charged that the only way for politicians to survive it's passage is to weave it into something else which they can argue they "absolutely had to vote for." The recent federal hate crimes legislation was passed this same way--by embedding it into a "must-pass" defense spending bill.
It's really the perfect way to repeal DADT, and to do it with as little fanfare as possible, so politicians can stay in their closets on the issue, and not jeopardize support from their conservative constituencies.
Ironic, isn't it? So long as you let them buy bullets and bombs, they'll pretty much give you anything else you want.

Unfortunately, this way of sneaking the repeal through also helps assure that many more Americans of all sexual orientations will be coming home from Poppyseedstan in boxes.

[BS Detector]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I'm biased, that comes from serving 20+ years and having to put up with crap like DADT.
I was simply pointing out the typical hypocrisy amongst the REPUBES who claimed anyone voting against a defense bill was voting against the troops, EXCEPT of course when it's the REPUBES doing it.

If the Republicans are so bad and the Democrats so good, why hasn't the current Congress (the veto proof Congress) repealed DADT.

Personally, I think they should but since I'm a Republican, I must be bad. So if I'm bad, is my opinion about repealing DADT just as bad?

[Lilllith]

Yeah, but you probably only want to repeal DADT because you think that means more gays and lesbians will get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
You are probably also against same sex marriage, right? Probably also against abortion. If you were for those things, why would you be a Rethuglicon?

[BS Detector]

Lilllith wrote:

Yeah, but you probably only want to repeal DADT because you think that means more gays and lesbians will get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
You are probably also against same sex marriage, right? Probably also against abortion. If you were for those things, why would you be a Rethuglicon?

Hateful little witch (with a capital B), aren't you.

Yes, I'm against same sex marriage, favoring civil unions. That's a legal disagreement. What or who you do in your personal life is none of my business. Don't bother to play the second class citizen card. Considering your ugly "Rethuglicon" stupidity, you can only aspire to second class since you seem to have no class at all other than low.

I support the repeal of DADT because it's a waste, and unncessary. My guess is that you would never join the military anyway so you'd have no worries about putting yourself at risk serving your country... or anybody else.

[WeTheSheeple]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>If the Republicans are so bad and the Democrats so good, why hasn't the current Congress (the veto proof Congress) repealed DADT.
Personally, I think they should but since I'm a Republican, I must be bad. So if I'm bad, is my opinion about repealing DADT just as bad?

Again, you're reading into things. I never said "all repubes are bad" or that "all dems are good". I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of the CURRENT crop of repubes in Congress complaining this repeal will be part of the defense authorization bill. They had no problem when DADT was passed in 1993.....(wait for it).....as part of the defense authorization bill!

The Dems have already passed Hate Crimes, are about to pass ENDA, and now have laid out how they will repeal DADT. Be patient, it's all coming.

[BS Detector]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, you're reading into things. I never said "all repubes are bad" or that "all dems are good". I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of the CURRENT crop of repubes in Congress complaining this repeal will be part of the defense authorization bill. They had no problem when DADT was passed in 1993.....(wait for it).....as part of the defense authorization bill!
The Dems have already passed Hate Crimes, are about to pass ENDA, and now have laid out how they will repeal DADT. Be patient, it's all coming.

As long as you keep needing the term "repubes" you'll be considered an adolsecent idiot. And when you ever ascribe responsibility for anything you don't like to any Deomcrat, then get back to me. Until then, you are clearly a prejudiced idiot.

If the Democrats have all the answers, one wonders why almost half the country is Republican. And if the Democrats have all the answers, why don't they just pass a law ending DADT. And if the Democrats have all the answers, why in the hell did they elect Pelosi as Speaker of the House?

On its face, I would oppose ENDA because I don't think the government should dictate hiring practices in a free market economy for non-government jobs. I also don't think that gays or anybody else should be singled out for special consideration, and especially don't believe trannies should get special consideration. If you had a business and wanted to hire *only* gays to work for you, I think you should have that option.

Yeah, I'm fairly certain that will create an uproar with the usual suspects, but I don't take positions just to be popular. My opinions are what I believe in.

[WeTheSheeple]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>As long as you keep needing the term "repubes" you'll be considered an adolsecent idiot. And when you ever ascribe responsibility for anything you don't like to any Deomcrat, then get back to me. Until then, you are clearly a prejudiced idiot.
If the Democrats have all the answers, one wonders why almost half the country is Republican. And if the Democrats have all the answers, why don't they just pass a law ending DADT. And if the Democrats have all the answers, why in the hell did they elect Pelosi as Speaker of the House?
On its face, I would oppose ENDA because I don't think the government should dictate hiring practices in a free market economy for non-government jobs. I also don't think that gays or anybody else should be singled out for special consideration, and especially don't believe trannies should get special consideration. If you had a business and wanted to hire *only* gays to work for you, I think you should have that option.
Yeah, I'm fairly certain that will create an uproar with the usual suspects, but I don't take positions just to be popular. My opinions are what I believe in.

First off, less than 25% of the country identifies as "Republican" (happy now).

Secondly, the Dems ARE passing a bill repealing DADT. That's kinda the whole point of this article.

Lastly, I agree that in a free market place people should have the right to hire or fire whoever they want. But until that right is applied equally- like allowing me to fire someone for being a christian- then I'll be supporting ENDA.

[BS Detector]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
First off, less than 25% of the country identifies as "Republican" (happy now).
Secondly, the Dems ARE passing a bill repealing DADT. That's kinda the whole point of this article.
Lastly, I agree that in a free market place people should have the right to hire or fire whoever they want. But until that right is applied equally- like allowing me to fire someone for being a christian- then I'll be supporting ENDA.

I'll support a free economy... including your right to fire christians.

You neglected to tell me why the Democrats don't just pass a separate and specific repeal of DADT if they're so perfect, rather than burying it in a far broader defense appropriation.

[BS Detector]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
First off, less than 25% of the country identifies as "Republican" (happy now).

Yes. At least more satisfied.

[WeTheSheeple]

BS Detector wrote:

<quoted text>I'll support a free economy... including your right to fire christians.
You neglected to tell me why the Democrats don't just pass a separate and specific repeal of DADT if they're so perfect, rather than burying it in a far broader defense appropriation.

It's hardly going to be "buried" in the defense bill. I'll remind you DADT was passed as part of the 1994 defense authorization bill. It is appropriate for it to be repealed in the same manner. It is directly related to the funding for the military, since it costs $100k's to enforce DADT.

So you'll start working to repeal all those special protections in employment & housing for christians? When I see that bill introduced into Congress, then I'll believe you.

[BS Detector]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
It's hardly going to be "buried" in the defense bill. I'll remind you DADT was passed as part of the 1994 defense authorization bill. It is appropriate for it to be repealed in the same manner. It is directly related to the funding for the military, since it costs $100k's to enforce DADT.
So you'll start working to repeal all those special protections in employment & housing for christians? When I see that bill introduced into Congress, then I'll believe you.

As poweful as you seem to think I am, I am not a member of Congress and cannot introduce legislation.

And when you start posting logic, then I'll give your idiotic postings any credence.

I won't hold my breath for that.