Obama's 'don't ask, don't tell' pledge questioned - USATODAY.com

Don't ask, don't tell never made much sense to me anyways. Wouldn't the military industrial complex want as many people as possible to continue to police the world and fight their endless war in the Middle East?

this is true. i guess their thinking is that gays aren't people.

And would the moral right be more excited if:

-A gay person shot a terrorist
-A terrorist shot a gay person

??????

But it makes bigots and closeted gays angry.

As a subset of liberalism would be the only reason anybody would think that!

is the Gay person a doctor that would be willing to perform legal abortions?

I thought it was a good speech, but he's given good speeches before. It's time for some leadership. I voted for him because I thought he'd be a pragmatist and reach out to both sides. It's time for him to start doing that.

In my opinion, they should worry about the filibuster less. As long as the initiative that's proposed has some broad support, send it through. If the GOP wants to filibuster it, use that against them come election time (both on the issue in question and the "GOP are do-nothing obstructionists" line). After all, those who support the GOP's filibuster on this and similar issues aren't going to vote Democrat anyway, and at least you give the base something for which to cheer.

On gay marriage I disagree. I think there are a lot of people that might favor the Dems on economic issues, but if the election is about gay marriage they'll stay home or vote GOP. Now if Congress could pass it, I wouldn't care. I'd say do it and stand on the historic achievement as history will treat you kindly. But, since it won't pass and will take the focus off of everything else that might be able to get done, I think it's foolish to go down that path.

How could you look at his voting record and believe that was going to happen?

I don't think you have a lot to worry about. Just from today... (but whats $2,280,000,000+?, a supreme court justice shook his head no to part of Obama's speech!!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :banghead: )

White House doles out $8 billion for fast trains - Yahoo! News

Senate permits gov't to borrow an additional $1.9T - Yahoo! News

FOXNews.com - Pelosi Pushes $300 Billion 'Fix' to Senate Health Care Bill

FOXNews.com - White House Rejects Pelosi's Push to Freeze Defense Spending

For god's sake yes.

The Civil Rights Acts were filibustered the crap out of. It delayed passage a couple days, but we still talk about the filibustering and who did it. If your bill works, which I assume they believe it will, the filibusters will look like morons.

Unless the fear is just that the whole thing fails, and they don't want to be solely responsible.

There's a hell of a difference between civil rights and healthcare or jobs. But even if you want to look at them as equal, the filibuster rules have changed. After civil rights both parties agreed that filibusters are too disruptive and made it so that what we think of as a filibuster doesn't really exist. On side can declare a filibuster and never have to stand in front of the public to "look like morons". It's all done behind the scenes now.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't push forward on what they believe in, they certainly should, but unless two-thirds of the senate agrees to change the rules they have to worry about the filibuster.

To me, that's the biggest problem. This "gentleman's agreement" filibuster nonsense is crap. For a filibuster, you should have to sit there 24/7. Any time someone gives up and leaves and you no longer have enough people to sustain the filibuster, then it is over. That means giving up free time. Giving up sleep. Giving up time with your family. That would ensure it is only used at important times.

yup!

My fingers are having trouble typing these words, but I agree with Larry and DT.

hehe

I agree. I'd be fine with the filibuster if there was a cost for using it. As long as it's pain free it's hard see any downside for using it as the GOP is doing.

dola

I haven't searched a lot for this answer, but why would every member of the GOP delegation in the Senate vote against pay as you go rules?

because they're voting against everything. they've adopted a nihilistic stand...i can't imagine it will play well come voting-time.

I disagree. When they were the majority party in the Senate the GOP made a lot of hay lambasting Democrats for not allowing "up-or-down votes", either in the context of threatened filibusters, or stuff getting held up in committees. The public didn't need to understand the mechanics of the obstruction, they just had to know that one party wasn't letting the "group of elected representatives" just "do their job". It's a simple message.

Yes, we all know in the South you get elected by beating blacks and gays, not helping them!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Some good news on the economic front. I'm sure everyone and their dead grandmother will take credit for it.

Economy soars 5.7 percent, fastest in 6 years - Yahoo! Finance

so what - now he's supposed to take the blame but not the credit? you're insane. it's laughable.

(non-economist disclaimer) That's a nice number and good news, but I don't think we can declare a verdict on the stimulus package until we see if we can maintain solid growth without depending on it. I mean, the economy is definitely going to grow if you artifically put $800 billion into it, right? That's a no-brainer. Just like I can have a lot of nice stuff in my house if I go nuts on credit cards for a few months.

I think the part that cracks me up is the idea that people are going to look at these numbers and things this will lead to long term success and then parlay that into spending more. People just aren't appreciating the long term problems all of this is going to present because all anybody cares about is the present.

Consumer and business spending are what drive the growth of the economy. If there is no more spending, there is no more growth. If spending stops, the economy crashes.

Fixed your bullshit post for you.

I was talking about both sides of the aisle. There's plenty of spin to be portrayed all around. And I'm annoyed that we'll have to hear it all weekend.

Homosexuality is morally indefensible? According to YOUR morals maybe, but then again we're (very deliberately) not a country with a national religion or any other body to promulgate a national "Code of Morals."

And therein lies the problem. The "Bible-thumping" brigade (for lack of a better term, yes i recognize it's a gross generalization) would like for this to be a non-secular nation where we all agree to live by Christian values or GTFO - call it a "fundamentalist Christian state," but unfortunately this country was founded on religious freedom and toleration not bigotry and intolerance and forcing one's views on another.

If you want a fundamentalist Christian nation...GTFO yourself and go found one somewhere.

Forget Obama and the contrived war between the GOP and the Democrats. (Anyone without a huge partisan chip knows they are both full of shit) Let's just take your last statement and rationally discuss it. Is there ever a situation when a huge debt and deficit is not good? When do you stop spending? I know people who were talking about the debt in the 70's were told... let's get out of this crisis and worry about the debt later. In the 80's, same thing. Clinton actually took action. The came Bush and now Obama with the let's get out of this crisis and worry about spending later. Doesn't anyone ever wonder why these crisis’s keep happening? I hate to burst your bubble (pun intended) but this isn't all the ills of capitalism. These same problems happen in socialist and communist countries where the spending gets completely out of control. I don't put it all on Obama, hell a lot of the blame goes to W Bush, but something has to change soon or we are all fucked. And sorry continually spending is not the solution that I was looking for.

The war on poverty is in year 46. The war on drugs is in year 40. The war on terror is in year 9. The crisis of the economy is year 3. These are problems that are just made worse by the government spending shitloads of money (both Democrats and Republicans). Maybe it’s time to admit that government can’t solve some of these problems. (if you think we are solving the current economic problem by creating artificial growth in the stock market than explain it is so hard to find a job. This bubble will burst soon and maybe this time we will actually try a different approach. Fiscal responsibility? We would need a new political party though to take this serious, the Democrats and Republicans know nothing about this)

You missed the part where I only mentioned consumer and business spending. If those two groups stop spending, then the only other source of spending for the economy is the government.

How dare they be born with a darker skin color or attraction to the same gender.

Isn't it blasphemy to call your own God morally indefensible?

I think they tried that once. We didn't let them.

Our mistake. We should have IMO.

I'm still waiting for all the Hollywood stars to move overseas. You'd think they would have moved by now. That's 6 years ago.

Well running a country based on religion is working out well in the Middle East.

:lol:

Hot damn, we agree on something. Would have left us both happier.

I'm not real big on surrendering a just cause, I'd prefer to die fighting for it.

And at the rate the country has been regressing, I may live long enough to get a good chance to do that.

Basically would be like moving the Mexican border up a couple thousand miles. Not something you necessarily want.

So you believe that the legalization of gay marriage is a bad thing (and I'm assuming you're not a fan of any homosexual relationships at all). What do you see as a worst-case scenario if it were legalized nationally? Or is it more a general concern regarding a moral compass of the country?

Obviously the gays would infiltrate our homes and next thing we know we'll all be homosexuals.

But the actual Mexican border would be down South...they'd have to deal with them all. Might make our lives easier.

We've agreed on that before, remember?:D

I'm not sure exactly why you're inviting a Jon-screed that will just get everyone up in arms. This episode is a repeat.

Accept our tolerance or GTFO!!!!

LMAO at you calling it a "just cause"