% of people under the poverty line (or "poor" by whatever metric) is a much more accurate way of judging the poverty in a society though.

Not a single GOP senator.

History won't judge them kindly.

A terrible day for the history of this nation.

This is by far, IMO, the worst showing by the entire government and process I've ever seen.

Surely though this is outside of the question - bad renters come in all sizes and shapes - in this case they obviously 'could' pay the rent but chose not to, I don't see how this affects the argument for helping people in need - as to be frank they weren't and shouldn't have received a handout as you put it ..

I wasn't saying we should move to private schools, just pointing out that people that send their schools via a more direct monetary route (such as cutting a monthly check to a school vs generic taxation) take FAR more interest in the success of their kids.

i don't think that's actually the correlation.

there's plenty of shitty rich parents who send their kids to private schools and don't take an interest in their lives.

I think that has more to do with said parents having more money and thus better able to make time for taking an interest in the success of their kids, whereas poorer parents will be working multiple jobs at places that won't allow much time for flexible scheduling.

I understand the hesitance to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell provision, but the fact that the CNN article makes it seem that most of the opposition is due to the DREAM Act has me furious. In my opinion, if these soldiers are willing to fight and die for the country, they damn well deserve a chance at citizenship.

I don't think it'd ever be possible in the short-term frankly, in England I paid around 46% tax on my earnings plus paying a 17.5% VAT on most non-essential purchases, in Sweden the tax rate is much higher - especially for higher rate earners (I think its about 60%).

I can't see policies involving those type of rates as being election winners ;)

To get that sort of thing accepted in America would require a huge change of mentality from the electorate and that sort of shift takes time.

Would it be worthwhile, I'd personally say 'yes' and quote what can be seen of the standard of living from most European countries (not pure 'money/income/luxuries' but the quality of life they have).

That being said I'm biased by my upbringing; what I consider sensible/important might not be reflected within American society.

Looks like ya'll got both angles covered. :)

In any event, I'm discussing the issue in general not as any sort of absolute.

Saxby Chambliss on Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

Saxby Chambliss is a pussy who made up a bogus knee injury and used student deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. He's all for war, just not if it requires him having to actually fight in it.

I understand there are people who spew hate because they have issues coming to terms with their own sexuality, it's another when you're dishonoring soldiers who put their lives on the line for this country doing something that you weren't man enough to do when your number was called.

Just a closeted coward.

I think we can all agree that alcohol use and body art in the military would be a path towards the end of America as we know it.

Never heard of him before and apologies for taking the thread off course ... but I can't be the only person who thought that was a 'porn star' name surely?

Yes, but he's for our values. He doesn't do anything except vote for the far right stuff, but undereducated rednecks in GA love him. I think I've mentioned it in the past, but he's never actually sponsored any legislation that became anything. He just shouts about the evil gays and evil socialist taxes and the people flock from their trailers. Oh, they flock from their basement in between pots of coffee too.

More Saxby:

Homophobic Comment on Gay Rights Blog Traced to Republican Senator's Office

:lol: :D

I can't wait to hear all of those that complained about the potential consequences for Lieberman by the Dems show real outrage today now that Murkowski is going to suffer real consequences for running as an independent.

Am I wrong or couldn't Obama just sign an executive order ending "Don't ask, don't tell"? Of course then the liberals couldn't be outraged at the conservatives for hate mongering and the conservatives couldn't create a wedge issue to help get the homophobes out to vote in the fall elections.

IMO, it is all about energizing the base away from the terrible job both sides are doing and get them to argue about a non-issue like the Mosque in NYC or gays in the military. How about discussing the actual war?

If he does that, is it actually legally binding?

SI

I think it needs congressional action because DADT was a signed law. I know I've read some speculation that Obama could do this on his own, but I'm not sure exactly how DADT was structured.

Being able to serve openly is a much more than a "non-issue" to many people in this country.

I've always said - the Republicans are much better at "playing the game of politics" than the Democrats. It's a shame their policies are so morally repugnant to me.

Especially the tens of thousands of gays currently in the military.

I don't know, I was honestly asking. I think I come across as mostly anti-Obama in this thread but I really would be a big fan if he tackled any of these issues...

1) endless war
2) ending the war on drugs
3) gay rights
4) repeal of the patriot act

These are supposed to be principles of the Democratic party.

Those really aren't principles of the Democratic party. I wish they were, but they haven't been during my lifetime.

If the president can do something, campaigned that he would do something, and leaves it to Congress to fight over than the problem lies with him and not with any member of Congress no matter how backwards their thought process is. I would think you would agree with me that dead gay and straight soldiers is a much bigger issue than DADT but there doesn't even seem to be debate on this. (IMO because they know gays divides the country evenly while discussing the war might actually piss off the voters and cause them to look outside the Republicrats)

Pretty sad then that neither party is willing to take on issues that a large chunk of the country (obviously #2 withstanding) support. Not sure than outside of law enforcement and the "for the children" crowd that many people would have a problem with #2 either.

I dunno, but I suspect that in many parts of the country, a lot more people care about #2 (drugs are bad, mmkay) than #3 (gay rights)

SI

"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb." (not that either side is particularly good, unfortunately)

SI

Sadly I do have to agree, though I do think a large portion of the country thinks the wars are a complete disaster. Wonder if they will have any balls to say something when we march into Iran?

Obama could sign an EO but it wouldnt end DADT. DADT would still be in place and the next President could rescind the EO on his first day in office. Obama and Gates have already changed the policies of DADT by making it much more difficult for a case to be brought forward against someone, but once again that could be quickly revoked by the next President.

But it's always nice for the Libertarians around here to find any way to criticize liberals for being hypocrites. That seems to be the favorite FOFC Libertarian pasttime.

The simple fact here is that the Democrats tried to overturn DADT and the Republicans blocked it. Spin it however you want to make both sides look bad, but if the Republicans didnt block it, then it would have been overturned.

I think it's one of those topics that many people disagree with but isn't high on their radars. So, even with 60 or 70% disagreeing, it's not on most voter's top 5 issues, according to recent polls. In fact, I'd almost wager "our President is a Muslim" is on more top 3 lists than "War in Iraq/Afghanistan", sadly enough.

To use a silly example, maybe 70% prefer Coke to Pepsi but you aren't going to vote for a high tax, gay rights, atheist Coke-drinker over a Tea Party Pepsi-drinker if you live in Rural Kansas.

SI

And if the Senate weren't broken 56 Dems would win.

Thats what my post was going to say but I figured it would be more of the "favorite FOFC Libertarian pasttime" if I mentioned that the Democrats do hold a majority and couldn't even get every member of their party to vote for it. (though your definition of broken might be different than mine :) )

So a couple of conservative Dem votes is a bigger problem than every GOP vote? The Dems passed it in the House and had 56 votes in the Senate. The problem is not on that side of the aisle.

Well Judy Biggert (Ill.), Joseph Cao (La.), Charles Djou (Haw.), Ron Paul (Tex.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) all voted to repeal in the House but Ron Paul is a Libertarian nutjob so I guess we are better off with the rest of the "normal, non nutjob" House republicans who voted for it.

Oh and I almost forgot these "normal, non nutjob" Democrats who "hate gays"...

Marion Berry (Ark.), Sanford Bishop (Ga.), Rick Boucher (Va.), Bobby Bright (Ala.), Chris Carney (Pa.), Travis Childers (Miss.), Jerry Costello (Ill.), Mark Critz (Pa.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Chet Edwards (Tex.), Bob Etheridge (N.C.), Gene Green (Tex.), Daniel Lipinski (Ill.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Mike McIntyre (N.C.), Solomon Ortiz (Tex.), Colin Peterson (Minn.), Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Mike Ross (Ark.), Heath Shuler (N.C.), Ike Skelton (Mo.), John Spratt (S.C.), John Tanner (Tenn.) and Gene Taylor (Miss.).

The only Libertarian member of Congress actually voted to repeal but keep preaching against people that are actually on your side.

EDIT: Oh and the official party platform. Again, just facts...

http://www.lp.org/news/press-release...-tell%E2%80%99

I was talking about the Senate filibuster vote, but you won't find me defending the votes of these Dems. As for Paul he's not always nuts, but as long as he keeps pushing for a gold standard he just can't be taken seriously.

I've never said that Libertarians don't agree with me on this issue. I'm not preaching against Libertarian policies, just tired of you and Buc (though he hasn't done this lately) and other Libertarians on your soapboxes telling us that we're just as bad as the Republicans.

Apparently since a handful of Dems in the Senate and House voted against the measure, we can't be pissed that every single GOP Senator (even the biggest RINO) voted to use a procedural maneuver to deny rights to gay Americans.

Basically. The issue is that UCMJ has rules against homosexuals in the military. Clinton was attempting to change that, but ran into opposition so signed an EO that become DADT... homosexuality was still against the UCMJ, but you don't harrass or go after people to find out if they are gay. That was the compromise.

It requires Congressional action for gays to openly serve because they have to rewrite the UCMJ rules, which can't be done by EO.

Using this criteria, most of my brother's chain of command should have been removed from service while he was in Ramadi.

As would the C-I-C (although the military seemed to despise Clinton exponentially more than they dislike BO).

I thought being in the military (or the NBA) led to alcohol use, adultery, fraternization, and body art. Not homosexuality

SI

Well, you can't expect a draft-dodger and chickenhawk like Chambliss to understand what it's like to serve.

Wasn't Chambliss the asshat who called wartime amputee Max Cleland unpatriotic?

SI

Clinton was kind of the "perfect storm" of Presidents the military likes to hate. Draft dodger, repeatedly signed over operational control to NATO or the UN, authorized a few undermanned missions and also attempted to cut and/or limit budgets.

In comparison, resistance to Obama in the military comes either from the birther contingent or people who simply don't like Democratic presidents.

It should be noted that there was plenty of hate for W as CIC (and even more for Rumsfeld). Draft dodger (him and Cheney), authorized wars without sufficient funding or supply chain for adequate equipment, out to lunch on strategy, took resources from the war many signed up for and applied them to a war many did not (i.e. how many in the Army agreed with Pat Tillman's assessment after he served in Iraq).


But these two wars have exposed some really appalling failures amongst the chain of command. Cowardice by hiding in FOBs while sending the enlisted out on patrol / missions. Cowardice by not pestering chain-of-command for adequate equipment. Lack of ethics by covering up / downplaying injuries, including a wholesale ignoring of the effects of concussions and other brain injuries. Routine application of truly appalling tactics. Covering-up of illegal activities. The list goes on.

I don't mean to denigrate the service of the vast majority of those who serve, but these simply aren't isolated incidents anymore. The Armed Forces, as a structure, have simply become broken over time and increasingly serve to reward the negative traits in their officer corps as opposed to the positive ones. This, more than anything, including homosexuality, has robbed the Armed Forces of morale, unit cohesion and everything else Saxby Chambliss may be talking about.

Yep.

It's surprising that when the Beckian Teabaggers talk about "restoring honor" to politics, they don't even mention twats like Chambliss.

Cleland is far worse than "unpatriotic".