Why is Reid limiting the number of amendments on the Defense Bill which includes DADT?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:28 PM GMT
    I dont understand. Does anybody know?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 21, 2010 11:59 PM GMT
    Well, if that was his reasoning, it failed with me. It just looks like the Dems are not serious about DADT or totally inefffectual at doing something about it. I still feel they should lose in Nov and be without their power jobs until they are willing to do something serious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 12:34 AM GMT
    This is a serious issue and is worthy of serious debate and shame on Harry Reid and those of his ilk for their attempt to use us to further their own political careers. If the democrats were really interested in repealing DADT they (including BO) would have put it out there and allowed a serious discussion on an issue which currently divides this country. I guarantee you that Harry Reid was quite happy this failed because the only reason this was put up for a vote today was to give his party an issue for the November election. Well I am not that stupid Harry and I am sick and tired of you trying to use me. I will not vote for any Democrat in November until you start treating me with the respect I deserve
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 22, 2010 12:57 AM GMT
    Haven't you LEARNED by now what the republican playbook is YET????

    If Harry Reid didn't limit the number of amendments by the republicans that Bill would have NEVER seen the light of day

    They would have loaded it with such crap that no one in their right mind would EVER vote for
    You guys should know this by now
    They do it OVER and OVER and OVER again

    What Harry Reid should have done is make them vote for a clean Bill repeal of DADT and nothing else
    That's what he should have done
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 3:08 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSmart person:

    mattyrec saidThis is a serious issue and is worthy of serious debate and shame on Harry Reid and those of his ilk for their attempt to use us to further their own political careers. If the democrats were really interested in repealing DADT they (including BO) would have put it out there and allowed a serious discussion on an issue which currently divides this country. I guarantee you that Harry Reid was quite happy this failed because the only reason this was put up for a vote today was to give his party an issue for the November election. Well I am not that stupid Harry and I am sick and tired of you trying to use me. I will not vote for any Democrat in November until you start treating me with the respect I deserve



    Not-so-smart person:

    GQjock saidHaven't you LEARNED by now what the republican playbook is YET????

    If Harry Reid didn't limit the number of amendments by the republicans that Bill would have NEVER seen the light of day

    They would have loaded it with such crap that no one in their right mind would EVER vote for
    You guys should know this by now
    They do it OVER and OVER and OVER again

    What Harry Reid should have done is make them vote for a clean Bill repeal of DADT and nothing else
    That's what he should have done


    I have another SB quote to bookmark it seems.

    The reality is that there is nothing to debate. The military has already said DADT should be repealed. Civil rights are not debatable. I, personally, don't understand gay people's desire to join the military industrial complex, but that's their decision and they should be able to server openly as they do in nearly every other advanced country.

    When DOMA comes up for repeal, do you really want a debate? Or do you want the Republicans (and Ben Nelson) to have a nice tall glass and "shut the fuck up" and give us our civil rights? How about ENDA?

    The Republicans decided when Obama was elected that they were going to use a strategy of obstructionism to mitigate what the Dems could do - to hell with the American people. You've seen it on healthcare, financial reform and now on DADT. This is not governing, this is politicking.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Sep 22, 2010 4:53 AM GMT
    What I don't understand is why it was attached to the Defense bill. It could have had a better chance of a stand alone bill. Did Reid really think it would be hard to sway Collins or even Snowe?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
    Not that the "tu quoque" argument should be used in everyday practice, but in this toxic political environment, until rules are changed, it's appropriate.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/mccain-knocks-amendments-_n_732229.htmlMcCain Knocks Amendments To Defense Authorization Despite Once Offering His Own
    As Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) noted right after he spoke on the floor, the Senate had previously considered hate crimes legislation in 2001, 2005, and 2008. McCain himself "offered a non-relevant amendment to the defense authorization bill," Levin added, proposing "to acquire campaign finance disclosure by the so-called 527 organizations as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization."

    Meanwhile, as a Democratic source following the debate on the Hill noted, back in 2005, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) managed to attach a provision granting immunity for companies manufacturing vaccines to protect against biological agents to an FY2006 DoD appropriations bill.

    The relevance of that measure to the Department of Defense -- as with DADT repeal -- is debatable. But the Democratic source claims that the procedural maneuvering by Frist and Hastert was far worse than anything done by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)

    "It was inserted by Frist and Hastert after the conference was over and without a vote by the conferees," the source said. "[And] it was added to an appropriations bill, which is even worse than an authorization bill because there isn't supposed to be any authorizing language in an appropriations bill."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 4:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    And, did you know that amnesty for about 2 million illegal aliens was included in it?


    This is a whole different argument, but those "illegal" aliens would have been allowed a pathway to be legal if they go to college or join the military.
    As any reasonable economist will tell you, lack of growth in population is tantamount to economic stagnation, especially with gentrification of our population.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_declineThis can adversely affect the quality of life for the young is an increased social and economic pressure in the sense that they have to increase per-capita output in order to support an infrastructure with costly, intensive care for the oldest among their population, removing focus from the planning of elder and future families and therefore further degrading rates of procreation. The decade-long economic malaise of Japan and Germany in the 1990s and early 2000s is often linked to these demographic problems, though there were also several other causes. The worst case scenario is a situation where the population falls too low a level to support a current social welfare economic system, which is more likely to occur with a rapid decline than with a more gradual one.


    And what happened to earning citizenship with military service? It's as old as Rome.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Sep 22, 2010 4:18 PM GMT
    Mepark saidWhat I don't understand is why it was attached to the Defense bill. It could have had a better chance of a stand alone bill. Did Reid really think it would be hard to sway Collins or even Snowe?




    One would think that Harry Reid & Co would have realized this, but once again they played politics with this very important issue, and shot themselves in the foot. Of course, they'll blame the Republicans but they really only have themselves to blame for not having handled this vote in the way it deserved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2010 7:27 PM GMT

    Banks and business have to write off certain losses in order to start afresh and get their books straight. Short of expelling every illegal immigrant, the DREAM amendment may be the best "write off" you can do (if you equate immigrants being here illegally as a "loss" for the economy).

    That, or you can encourage "indigenous" populations to increase their birth rate, which has never been successful for 1st world countries. (Demographic Transition model)

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/08/us_birth_rate_falls_again.html
    Provisional data for 2009 found that an estimated 4,136,000 babies were born in the United States in 2009, a 2.6 percent drop from 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

    The drop follows a 2 percent fall in births that occurred between 2007 and 2008, which pushed the nation's fertility rate below 2.1 per woman, meaning Americans were no longer giving birth to enough children to keep the population from declining.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    Banks and business have to write off certain losses in order to start afresh and get their books straight. Short of expelling every illegal immigrant, the DREAM amendment may be the best "write off" you can do (if you equate immigrants being here illegally as a "loss" for the economy).

    That, or you can encourage "indigenous" populations to increase their birth rate, which has never been successful for 1st world countries. (Demographic Transition model)

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/08/us_birth_rate_falls_again.html
    Provisional data for 2009 found that an estimated 4,136,000 babies were born in the United States in 2009, a 2.6 percent drop from 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

    The drop follows a 2 percent fall in births that occurred between 2007 and 2008, which pushed the nation's fertility rate below 2.1 per woman, meaning Americans were no longer giving birth to enough children to keep the population from declining.


    Unfortunately, this (falling birth rates in general) is very true.

    White Anglo-Saxons (the current, and soon to be former majority race and, likely also soon to be former major cultural influence in America as the trend is going) aren't having enough babies, and will relegated to a plurality status by 2030, if not replaced as a majority by Latinos (who have a comparatively higher reproductive/replacement rate)

    Opening up immigration is not only necessary, but will become a matter of fact by both parties wanting to woo the increasingly more powerful Latino vote.

    That said, opening up immigration should be done in a controlled manner, and with a view toward fast-tracking newcomers toward assimilating them into current mainstream of American culture, and not allowing them to set up "a nation within a nation".

    It is actually matter of national security when you think about it: consider how Austria-Hungary, the USSR, and Yugoslavia unwound as the world order changed at the end of WW1 and the Cold War respectively.

    It is time for the multiculturalist social experiment to end. It only serves to make us a weak empire of so many impossibly diverse peoples that we will altogether fail as an empire, rather than a republic of many people knit by a single, common culture.

    One Nation. Indivisible. With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 4:08 AM GMT
    Mepark saidWhat I don't understand is why it was attached to the Defense bill. It could have had a better chance of a stand alone bill. Did Reid really think it would be hard to sway Collins or even Snowe?


    No one would really expect republicans to not vote for a defense bill.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 23, 2010 10:09 AM GMT
    Mepark saidWhat I don't understand is why it was attached to the Defense bill. It could have had a better chance of a stand alone bill. Did Reid really think it would be hard to sway Collins or even Snowe?


    Because it would never pass as a stand alone. The safest way to pass it was to attach it to a Defense Authorization bill since Republicans historically will not vote against them. That they (and the Blue Dogs) did, shows you just how far they are willing to go to deny Obama or Red or Pelosi a win.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Sep 24, 2010 6:30 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    q1w2e3 saidAs any reasonable economist will tell you, lack of growth in population is tantamount to economic stagnation, especially with gentrification of our population.


    Which is why we have immigration laws and quotas.

    Come on out and say it. Illegal immigration is something that you (and the liberals / Democrats) support.



    q1w2e3 saidAnd what happened to earning citizenship with military service? It's as old as Rome.


    Fine.

    But do it through the legal immigration channels.

    Stop trying to justify illegal immigration. These people, as the first thing they did on American soil, was to violate Federal law and the integrity of our borders.






    You're a fuckin' idiot.
    And, you're full of shit, as always.
    I don't support illegal immigration, and I've said so countless times.