Can I be Bueller?
(If I am Bueller then why would I bother typing when I can just copy and paste?)
CMC fnord!
All well and good, but I’m concerned that some of our lesser minds might not grasp the relevance. Indeed, the esteemed Constitutional scholar Mr. Ben Adler makes no mention of it in his definitive work in that widely respected journal of constitutional law, Newsweek. But President Obama appears to think it of some importance, as quoted above, and I should like that broken down into smaller bits for our less well-informed.
Which, of course, I would do at once, if I were not so busy sewing these drapes into a fancy gown for the Pissy Bitches Ball…
That does make sense to me. At least with an outright foe you can have some level of certainty that any points they make or compromises they come to they’ll stick to, in the sense that they’re quite open about how much they don’t like it. If I had the choice between making a deal with someone who’s lied to me for years, and someone who merely hates me, as much as the second might be more difficult at least if we came to some end agreement i’d be able to trust it more. But I do think in this sort of situation it’s not really a matter of insincerity vs. animosity - after all, people who dislike me for who I am might well consider it ok to lie to me, too. I mean, if you flip it around, I can at least trust that the first foe will be untrustworthy. I can assume it and plan ahead for that eventuality; I can look at their history and see what lies they might tell, I can bring up their lies in a discussion if I want them to stop. I can even refuse to discuss an issue with them at all, if my certainty of the uselessness of it is strong enough. In a sense, i’m forewarned about their duplicity and can plan for it, as unhappy a task as that is. With the hateful foe, i’m forewarned about their dislike, but they, too, might lie to me, and i’m less prepared for that. To the extent it’s difficult to have a dialogue with somebody who’s disingenuous, it’s even harder still to have one with somebody who’s disingenuous without your knowledge. But that’s less a point about which poison is potentially worst and more which poison is easiest to deal with, so it’s a bit off point.
I’m going to have to abandon this thread due to a death in the family.
Sorry.
Condolences to you and yours.
Even if a DADT repeal fails in congress and Obama’s justice department “defends” the law, there is still the chance that the higher court sustains the lower court decision. So all is not lost.
Overall I think it is in the gay’s long term best interest to have this repealed/struck down the right way so as to indicate the rightness of their cause, rather than by fiat which can be discarded as a partisan ploy. But I recognize that as a straight man I have less at stake, and so can afford to be more patient.
Our best to you and yours.
The OP being unavailable, may I respectfully suggest that the thread be closed, as a gesture of unanimous sympathy?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.
That’s right, it’s “doomed”; it has “no chance.” “Nothing ever happens.”
Breakdown of voting to invoke cloture on the DADT issue:
Yeas:
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Nays:
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not voting:
Bunning (R-KY)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
I eagerly await the OP’s explanation of why the 55 Democrats in the Yay column and the 33 Republicans in the Nay column mean nothing, and why the 6 Republicans in the Yay column and the 1 non-voting Democrat constitute conclusive evidence that liberals hate gays and conservatives are better on gay rights rights issues.
Yeah, those Democrats really sat on their hands this time, didn’t they? I guess Obama might prove that he hates gays by refusing to sign it, though, right?
If you want to give the Republicans a little more credit, it’s worth noting that Burr and Ensign, who voted “nay” on cloture, voted “yea” on the repeal itself.
I did notice that, although, in the spirit of the OP, it would seem fair to conclude that their vote on the repeal was simply a self-serving decision to pile onto the winning team. After all, why vote to prevent cloture if you don’t hate gays?
Im very glad to have been wrong. I think it’s a better day for our country because of this.
My favorite line in this was something about Democrats giving into “special interest groups.” As if Republicans NEVER EVER NEVER NEVER EVER do ANYTHING for Special Interest groups. As if gay haters are not a special interest group.
Different kind of special.
And interest.
Oh, so you think being classy will save you from being an asshole? Forget it, hoss. I been classy dozens of times, still an asshole. Get used to it.