Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

My boyfriend was a Marine (corps birthday and veteran's day in the same week!) in 1993 who served with a LOT of gay and lesbian servicemembers. He didn't like it then when it was just a proposal, and he certainly doesn't like it now.

I'm not sure what you mean. at the time clinton pushed it, it was progressive. now it's outdated. all cool, but no one has said that in the press.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

My boyfriend was a Marine (corps birthday and veteran's day in the same week!) in 1993 who served with a LOT of gay and lesbian servicemembers. He didn't like it then when it was just a proposal, and he certainly doesn't like it now.

It's lame. I blame Clinton. No offence.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I stand corrected.

Still, the point is that the administration is playing politics because they don't want to take the political hit; rather, they want to push the issue on to congress. It's sheepish IMO.

It's not a political hit when 70% of the country favors repeal. But they seem very committed to the idea that social change needs to happen in the legislature, not the courts, perhaps a reaction to all the people who think (mistakenly, in my view, but it's common wisdom) that the backlash to Roe was worse than it would have been if Congress had done the same thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a political hit when 70% of the country favors repeal. But they seem very committed to the idea that social change needs to happen in the legislature, not the courts, perhaps a reaction to all the people who think (mistakenly, in my view, but it's common wisdom) that the backlash to Roe was worse than it would have been if Congress had done the same thing.

do you think congress would have passed "roe?" seriously?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a political hit when 70% of the country favors repeal. But they seem very committed to the idea that social change needs to happen in the legislature, not the courts, perhaps a reaction to all the people who think (mistakenly, in my view, but it's common wisdom) that the backlash to Roe was worse than it would have been if Congress had done the same thing.

i don't usually respond to the same post twice, but aren't you the sock that was explaining how most of america supported the HC reform act?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think congress would have passed "roe?" seriously?

plus, no offense, but the civil rights act and the voting rights act only passed because the president twisted some arms.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a political hit when 70% of the country favors repeal. But they seem very committed to the idea that social change needs to happen in the legislature, not the courts, perhaps a reaction to all the people who think (mistakenly, in my view, but it's common wisdom) that the backlash to Roe was worse than it would have been if Congress had done the same thing.

My understanding is that Obama made a deal with the top brass in the military that they would give their full support for the repeal, but in return, they got to control how it was done. So waiting for the report to come out next month (even though NBC got a hold of it last week) is part of the dance that he agreed to do in order to get their support.

Hank, there were a lot of people in the gay community that didn't think it was that good of a compromise, especially after a few years of implementation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you think congress would have passed "roe?" seriously?

Dunno. But that's not the point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

i don't usually respond to the same post twice, but aren't you the sock that was explaining how most of america supported the HC reform act?

They did, and still do. When you look at the people who say they're unhappy with it, a lot of them are unhappy because they say it didn't go far enough. I've said this before and it gets tedious to point it out again and again, so I mostly don't bother to respond when you make this point.

Obviously, the people who don't like it at all got really energized to vote in this election, and the people who do like it don't seem to feel so strongly, perhaps because many of the benefits won't kick in for a while. There's a lot one could say on this subject, but you seem to prefer expressing the same single idea over and over again instead.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

plus, no offense, but the civil rights act and the voting rights act only passed because the president twisted some arms.

None taken.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Hank, there were a lot of people in the gay community that didn't think it was that good of a compromise, especially after a few years of implementation.

yeah, I know. I had friends that were gay then too.

but clinton stuck his neck out to do dadt, and while some idealist may have been bothered by it, it did give cover for a number of years compared to what proceeded it. I mean I don't normally suggest reading stories people post but anyone wondering where the country was then, read the story rt linked to before.

the real shame is that clinton invested in dadt and we are all arguing about it now, but a gay couple has no right to quiet enjoyment of their home. no president has ever invested in the expansion of the rights that extend to everyone based upon sex and religion and race and IQ (hi ggg!) but people can still give gay couples shit in their homes.

Why isn't that the battleground? I don't get it and I didn't get it in 93.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

They did, and still do. When you look at the people who say they're unhappy with it, a lot of them are unhappy because they say it didn't go far enough. I've said this before and it gets tedious to point it out again and again, so I mostly don't bother to respond when you make this point.

Obviously, the people who don't like it at all got really energized to vote in this election, and the people who do like it don't seem to feel so strongly, perhaps because many of the benefits won't kick in for a while. There's a lot one could say on this subject, but you seem to prefer expressing the same single idea over and over again instead.

you just trolling for this, but i can't post anything else........ smh

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

yeah, I know. I had friends that were gay then too.

but clinton stuck his neck out to do dadt, and while some idealist may have been bothered by it, it did give cover for a number of years compared to what proceeded it. I mean I don't normally suggest reading stories people post but anyone wondering where the country was then, read the story rt linked to before.

the real shame is that clinton invested in dadt and we are all arguing about it now, but a gay couple has no right to quiet enjoyment of their home. no president has ever invested in the expansion of the rights that extend to everyone based upon sex and religion and race and IQ (hi ggg!) but people can still give gay couples shit in their homes.

Why isn't that the battleground? I don't get it and I didn't get it in 93.

Truman started integrating the military in the 40s well before any of the civil rights legislation in the 60s. I think the military becomes a big deal first because the government has full control over pretty much every aspect of what goes on in the military, whereas it starts (rightfully) to lose that control in the civilian population.

As for healthcare reform, this study from the Kaiser Family Foundation which came out yesterday, analyzes the impact of the healthcare bill on the election. Different people will read the results (in helpful chart form here in different ways. I tend to focus on these charts, because I think that Americans like the law once they know what it is.



and



You're free to cut and paste the ones you like.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not a political hit when 70% of the country favors repeal. But they seem very committed to the idea that social change needs to happen in the legislature, not the courts, perhaps a reaction to all the people who think (mistakenly, in my view, but it's common wisdom) that the backlash to Roe was worse than it would have been if Congress had done the same thing.

Wahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

Ty, really, I have a dream that one day, just one day, you will take off the blinders.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I may have to start giving daily reports from the NYT. You know, point counterpoint kind of thing.

Good luck with that. I know this dream let's Fox watchers sleep at night, but there is just no comparison. No other news outlet (even including the opinion shows on MSNBC) devotes itself to advancing one party's agenda.