The Republican Senate bloc has united again. This time it's to block lifting the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. You don't have to be a gay rights activist to know this policy is wrong constitutionally. I also believe it is morally wrong.

It is tragic and shameful that any political party put their collective political agenda ahead of what is right. For those of you blaming America's ills on one party and gleefully expecting that Democrats will be drummed out of Washington, do not be surprised at the level of public disgust expressed by millions and directed toward Republicans in November.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

The Republican Senate bloc has united again. This time it's to block lifting the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. You don't have to be a gay rights activist to know this policy is wrong constitutionally. I also believe it is morally wrong.

It is tragic and shameful that any political party put their collective political agenda ahead of what is right. For those of you blaming America's ills on one party and gleefully expecting that Democrats will be drummed out of Washington, do not be surprised at the level of public disgust expressed by millions and directed toward Republicans in November.

You neglected to add WHY it was blocked. Seems one of your heros, Harry Reid, at the last minute tried to add a number of election type ammendments.

Even those on the REP side who favor voted against it for that reason only.

Man, do your research !!!!

Your post is typical of the political clap trap we have had since Reid and Pelosi took over.

This is yesterday's news but the reason the Republicans voted it down was because King Harry Reid would not allow any discussion or any amendments to be proposed by the Republicans on the bill. If he had allowed it, he would have had the votes necessary. Susan Collins even told him he had her vote but he had to allow discussion and amendments by the Republicans to be considered. When he refused, she said NO.

Is the Reid model really the way a democracy should work ?

BTW, that is not all that was in the bill and this was all being attached to a bill that provided funding for our troops in Afghanistan. They also had something in there called the Dream Act to give illegal aliens immunity. Why would Reid want that in a defense Spending Bill ? He is trying to get reelected in a heavily Hispanic state is why.

How about just presenting a bill with one item in it, allow debate, consider amendments from all sides and have it pass or fail on its own merits instead of these political shenanigans the Democrat majority is playing ?

41 more days until election day.

Another thing you failed to mention is the fact that Arkansas Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, also voted with the Republicans.

Of course Reid's vote was to insure procedural flexibility that will be needed to raise the issue again. Lincoln and Pryor are trying to keep their jobs.

Agree. I think more were opposing the Dream act that the Don't Ask Don't Tell portion. Although neither of them belong in the defense spending bill.

I get tired of these senators/reps adding superfluous add ons to any bill. Each bill should stand on its own merits.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Another thing you failed to mention is the fact that Arkansas Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, also voted with the Republicans.

Of course Reid's vote was to insure procedural flexibility that will be needed to raise the issue again. Lincoln and Pryor are trying to keep their jobs.

I wonder if IJUSLUVIT just forgot, misread OR just ignored the facts ?

Originally Posted by Bucco

I wonder if IJUSLUVIT just forgot, misread OR just ignored the facts ?

Yep, still no personal attacks here.

Originally Posted by Xavier

Yep, still no personal attacks here.

If somebody makes a flawed and misleading statement how do you call them on it without it being a personal attack in your eyes.

I lie to you; you tell me I'm lying; by you're logic you've just made a personal attack on me.

Known full well to Reid when he slipped it in the bill.
As was stated above, Reids attempt to curtail/not allow discussion or opportunity for amendments was a good intention for we the people....BS

Reids move was to muster the gay voting block as well as the latino voting block.

Partisan packaging, and re-defining to make a point.
It shows and falls flat every time just like Reids bill.

btk

Originally Posted by RichieLion

If somebody makes a flawed and misleading statement how do you call them on it without it being a personal attack in your eyes.

I lie to you; you tell me I'm lying; by you're logic you've just made a personal attack on me.

If it is a liberal, you can't

Yoda

Originally Posted by Xavier

Yep, still no personal attacks here.

I hope you were joking.

[QUOTE=Xavier;294407]Yep, still no personal attacks here.[/QUOTE
Yep, my post was at best sarcastic because this is the same poster who criticized folks on here WHO DO RESEARCH as being those who only posture politically with no facts.

Not personal, it just is not a good or right thing to engage in conversation either KNOWING you are leaving out facts, DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS, or are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. I was just curious which it was !!! It was a pretty serious oversight, even you must admit !!!

Originally Posted by Yoda

If it is a liberal, you can't

Yoda

Nice comment Yoda, but I'll use it with my own spin to complete a sentence which is my summation of the political forum.

"If it's a liberal, you can't ...post here without a specific group of folks getting angry at you."

They get angry at what you say, how you say it and often at you personally. Almost never can you have an intelligent discussion. Rarely do you get an accurate and emotionless answer like pauld315's above.

I started this thread as my 'last experiment', stating a simple thought but purposely glossing over facts. All but one of the responses fell into the same old tiresome groove. So from now on I'll have discussions with individuals in pms.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Yep, my post was at best sarcastic because this is the same poster who criticized folks on here WHO DO RESEARCH as being those who only posture politically with no facts.

Not personal, it just is not a good or right thing to engage in conversation either KNOWING you are leaving out facts, DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS, or are UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE FACTS. I was just curious which it was !!! It was a pretty serious oversight, even you must admit !!!

Now to me you are saying that either he is purposely lying, too stupid to know the facts or too dumb to understand the facts.

Yep, no personal attacks here!

Mr. X (Xavier)

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Nice comment Yoda, but I'll use it with my own spin to complete a sentence which is my summation of the political forum.

"If it's a liberal, you can't ...post here without a specific group of folks getting angry at you."

They get angry at what you say, how you say it and often at you personally. Almost never can you have an intelligent discussion. Rarely do you get an accurate and emotionless answer like pauld315's above.

I started this thread as my 'last experiment', stating a simple thought but purposely glossing over facts. All but one of the responses fell into the same old tiresome groove. So from now on I'll have discussions with individuals in pms.

So you didn't really post useful information?

You were "glossing over facts" ?

You have been conducting experiments with your posts?

Why would you do that? It doesn't seem like someone being very open minded looking for an honest informative exchange of ideas to me. Sorry.