To be fair, Obama's got to realize that he needs to keep his "allies" engaged in negotiations. For better or worse he's not very good at stroking egos and that's been killing him.

Is Obama trying to go all Clinton now? Not that I blame him, I guess.

Indeed. One gets the impression that Obama just negotiated with Senate Republicans and barely included Senate or House Democrats in the loop. That's a great way to get your party pissy at you.

It's a shame that McCain has decided that his opposition to gay rights is going to be his legacy.

1. Sorry but the tea party <> libertarian party. Not even in the same ballpark. Tea Party has no problem with endless war, spending shitloads of money on "Republican" or "family values" things, shoving religion down people's throats...

2. We have been over this a million times, including numerous times in this thread (probably with you). Why wouldn't people want some of the money they spend in federal taxes spent in their state/city? Why wouldn't a politician do this? It's not like a refund is on the way it will just go to some other bullshit project. Lower taxes and less spending? Even better. But if they are going to pass a spending bill I sure as hell want some of the money I spent in taxes to go to St. Louis and not Portland or Miami.

Most Republicans are flat out wrong bigoted assholes on these issues but unfortunately the Democrats are pussies that are scared of the blowback which might make them even worse. I have said before if the Democrats actually took a stand on privacy rights, gay rights, endless war, or the drug war they may actually get my vote. There is nothing desirable in the Republican party (at least not in Missouri, if Ron Paul were my rep...) but the Democrats used to have some ideals that I really believed in. Now they are both just the same party throwing out immigration or abortion or some other wedge issue to confuse the general public into voting them both into office again while they both cater to the same corporate agenda.

Don't be like that. He was slamming both parties - and he did throw Democrats a bone by not lumping them in with Republicans as generally bigoted assholes.

It's much easier in partisan politics to be the "underdogs". They held 60 seats and had the presidency. If they really wanted to do something they would have. Like DT said I agree with the Democrats in principle on this issue but when they control Congress and the White House and do nothing (with a president who might have some background in civil rights nonetheless) they aren't going to get a cheerleading routine from me or a blame only the Republicans from me either. Had the 60 member majority passed it and gotten creamed in the polls I would have felt sympathy. (though one wonders how a principled politician might actually do as the leader of one of the parties?)

I would say a percent of those aren't necessarily bigoted, but closeted.

I don't know if it would qualify as "interesting", but even I was scratching my head at that one. Kind of like holding Snowe against the entire GOP, which doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

I'm not sure I quite follow this logic. How does giving government employees raises help towards the deficit? I know one argues for increasing taxes, but how does increasing taxes (which isn't a guarantee it will generate revenue) help when spending keeps increasing?

One federal district court in Virginia struck down part of the health care plan as unconstitutional. This is really only noteworthy in that in ends the plan's shutout streak at 2. But this all will be determined at the Supreme Court level down the road no matter what. Where of course, I fully expect the vote to simply be a referendum on the perceived merits (or perceived lack of merits) of the plan.

Virginia Federal Judge Shoots Down Part of Health Care Law - Law Blog - WSJ

I gave a bit more background when it was first announced. My agency isn't taxpayer funded, and for that reason we're on an alternative pay system instead of the GS system that the prototypical Federal employee is on. Obama's proposal includes a pay freeze for all federal employees, whether appropriated or nonappropriated (like mine). Eliminating our raises will only increase my agency's reserves.

Filibuster on DADT broken today. It should be repealed with a majority vote tomorrow.

I am so overjoyed!! 63-33 as well! Thank you Senators Libermann and Collins!

Our descent into madness continues. And if they had any leadership at all, the GOP would revoke membership of the 6 treacherous pieces of vermin that voted for this abomination.

But they don't. And they won't. In the end, people get the government they deserve, we have no one to blame but our (collective) selves for this.

Chickenhawks sure upset about this.

That's ok, they are being left in the dust anyway. Where they belong, may I add.

Yes, today is a day of mourning for rednecks everywhere.

Very happy to see this gone. My brother (who is gay) served honorably in the Desert Shield/Storm, but has many issues due to keeping his true self secret during his entire enlistment.

They're afraid they will all start wearing ballerina shoes and making whoopee with each other instead of fighting wars.

I for one am pleased this - I see it as a sign of hope that societies are becoming more accepting of people, homophobia is no different from being racism because of the colour of someones skin imho ... a ludicrous concept and one that is thankfully becoming outdated.

Senate votes for repeal and now to Obama! Glorious day!

Yet again you pull no punches in reminding us what a vile POS you are.

I for one hope beyond hope that your son turns out to be a homosexual.

DT: Now that's not fair and/or over the line.

Saddling his son with Jon's holier then thou hatred from his father?

:D

Holy crap, the Senate finally did something right! It's a Christmas miracle!

At least I acknowledge the existence of right & wrong and am willing to honestly discuss them as such. You, on the other hand, attempt to excuse the inexcusable. You're a prime example of everything wrong with the world today, at least as anything other than a reminder of who/what not to be.

As for my son, you're free to wish as you please I suppose. It's more than a bit tasteless of you IMO but then again I have little in the way of expectations so it's considerably easier than I would have expected to be able to shrug off.

Are you on a step system? The freeze applies to the cost of living allowances, not WiGis (within grade increase) or grade increases due to promotion.

Honest question. Why is homosexuality wrong?

Sexual prejudices are different from other prejudices as they are mainly motivated by one's issues with their own sexuality. You'll find a lot of people hide behind religion or irrational fears to justify it though.

Yet ignore other things in the Bible that are "wrong". If you're someone who follows the Bible and takes things literally, fine, I'm with you. If you cherry pick things about sexual orientation while ignoring the vast other "wrongs" in the Bible, you're using it as an excuse to cover up for the real reason.

+1000

There is a difference in feeling something is wrong and demanding that people abide by your beliefs. For instance, I feel that lot of religions are wrong, yet I'm not for forcing people out of it. It's those who are not satisfied with themselves that are the ones who need to prevent others from acting upon things to justify their own beliefs. I don't believe in Scientology and feel most of their beliefs are wrong. Yet I am not pushing for that Church to be banned. I don't need something to reinforce my belief.

Everyone might be inconsistent in their beliefs, but that doesn't discount the argument. If you are inconsistent in your beliefs, there is a reason for it. There is a reason why someone is vehemently against homosexuality because of their religion, yet not against pre-marital sex, working on the Sabbath, and other big no-nos. If you have a theory as to why, we're all ears. But the stuff I said about sexual prejudices is not new. It's a widely held belief by the scientific community and even backed up with real studies (I posted one earlier).

In any event, why do you feel it's wrong? And if it's a religuous reason, do you blame God for making them homosexual?

As I told my wife earlier today: "Now we know what the real deal in tax 'deal' was." It looks to me like Obama traded the tax cuts for DADT. Of course, they could never say it publicly, but it does kindof fit in my mind.

SI

I'm all for tax cuts, even for the rich who do pay a lot. I just think that it has to go alongside spending cuts. It would be nice if they could have done both at the same time.

There will be interesting side-effects to the bill for heteros as well. Now sodomy will be legalized. If they repeal DADT without changing Article 125 of UCMJ, every male homo will have to be a non-practicing homo...otherwise they can be prosecuted for sodomy under UCMJ. If they change Article 125, then oral (and anal) sex for a male hetero will be legal as well.

It's a little enforced article, but it should also be changed.

dola, BTW, there are a lot of articles that probably need to be changed...this would just be one of them.

I'll bite on this one, just briefly though.

Free will generally allows for anyone to be capable of pretty much anything.
Being capable of conceiving something doesn't equate to "God put this in my head".

For an example, I can quite easily conceive, say, mass homicide. If I act on that impulse, do you blame me or God?

Mass homicide is many times commited by individuals who are mentally unstable. Whether it be psychopathy, schizophrenia, or some other mental disease. Ofen, it's something uncontrollable.

So if someone is born a psycopath, meaning they are genetically predisposed to not feel empathy for others, is that not the fault of God? Or do you blame the parents for not knowing they are creating someone with those genes?

Indeed (on religious right elevated this issue well above other items). I do respect those who in addition to stating homosexual activities are wrong also say that pre-marital sex and divorce are contrary to God's well. I mean, heck, if anything Jesus reserves some of his biggest broadsides against divorce and the allowance of the practice among the Jews.

Hooray for something being done against bigotry in the government. The more we make it comfortable for gay Americans to simply be gay Americans maybe the more those still intolerant will get to know them and realize they're just people. It's hard to be a bigot towards a friend.

I think those against gay rights are missing a chance to make their argument, which could be powerful if framed the right way. We could use people advocating for morality in our society. We need gay people and straight people to think more about making good moral decisions particularly when it comes to sexuality. But when they confound immorality with homosexuality, they lose a big part of their potential audience.

Gays aren't even trying to reproduce. As such, they're responsible for world's dangerous underpopulation.

With Jon's feelings about trying to reduce the population you'd think he'd be for teh gay. The hypocrisy of it all. ;)

I've given the Senate moderates a lot of shit for not ever getting anything done, but to be fair DADT repeal doesn't happen without Lieberman and Collins. It's likely to be the legacy for both of them.