What the Hell Is Wrong with Republicans? September 22, 2010

What the Hell Is Wrong with Republicans?

I’m so pissed off right now.

I know everyone’s already written plenty about what Republicans did yesterday regarding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I haven’t been able to rant yet.

I was shocked when I heard the final vote count. I can’t believe that that many members of Congress think so little of gays and lesbians in the military that they would deny them the ability to serve openly like everybody else.

I don’t know whether to blame Republicans for blocking equality to gain votes, or Christians who push this idiotic notion that giving GLBT people the same rights as everyone else will make our society worse, or President Obama for not simply signing an Executive Order to end DADT.

We need more Democrats in the Senate. Get out and vote, even if you don’t think your vote will make a difference. Better yet, drag your friends to the polling booth, tell everyone on Facebook to get off their ass on Election Day, and make them vote with you. It’s sad that even with the majority in Congress, we still can’t accomplish common sense legislation. But the Republicans aren’t capable of governing — they’ve shown that time and time again, especially the past couple years. There’s no reason to keep any of them in power.

Especially John McCain, who spearheaded the fight against repeal, and then put his fingers in his ears while reporters asked him questions and pretended like no one was saying anything of importance.

“Liberty and justice for all” my ass.

There’s no good reason to keep this policy in place. Let the bigots defend themselves.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • VXbinaca

    What I was surprised by was how close the vote was.

    The cultures changing, it’s only a matter of time, maybe one or two more attempts, and it’ll pass.

    The silver lining is how close it came to passing.

  • NewEnglandBob

    Republicans, having their heads up their asses and containing many fundagelicals, of course, have no soul when it comes to the rights of anyone. They just vote no as a cadre of fools.

  • VXbinaca


    We need more Democrats in the Senate. Get out and vote, even if you don’t think your vote will make a difference. Better yet, drag your friends to the polling booth, tell everyone on Facebook to get off their ass on Election Day, and make them vote with you. It’s sad that even with the majority in Congress, we still can’t accomplish common sense legislation. But the Republicans aren’t capable of governing — they’ve shown that time and time again, especially the past couple years. There’s no reason to keep any of them in power.


    – Neither party represents my values. So I think I’ll stay home this election just like the last one.
    – No, the Democrats are not good at governing either.
    – We need less Democrats in office because they’re goons just like the Teabagger assholes and Republicans.

    I don’t know whether to blame Republicans for blocking equality to gain votes,


    or Christians who push this idiotic notion that giving GLBT people the same rights as everyone else will make our society worse,

    Warmer. Much warmer actually.

    or President Obama for not simply signing an Executive Order to end DADT.

    Disco! He is the commander of the military. He can do it but won’t. Unlike health care, it’s the one place he’s constitutionally authorized to make bold moves like that. Yet he won’t do it.

    If anyone ever needed proof that he was a Christian, this is it.

    You should think the next time you go to the voting booth. Think about how he’s stabbed you all in the back. Ramping up the drug wars, starting secret wars in Africa, keeping the prison in Guantanamo open, dragging his feet on ending the wars, Letting the Wikileaks whistle blower be prosecuted, messing up the internet and Net Neutrality.

  • Dave B

    The democrats could easily repeal don’t ask don’t tell if they really wanted to. It seems clear that they’d rather lay the blame on the republicans and avoid any fallout from making a decision themselves. I can’t understand why anyone would actually want either of these parties to be in power.

  • David

    “We need more Democrats in the Senate.”

    That’s right. It’s not “We need more free thinkers in the Senate, “We need more people in the Senate who value individuality,” or “We need more people in the Senate who are less concerned with a person’s sexual choices and more concerned with protecting the freedom of each individual to decide how to live their own lives or how to spend the money that they earned, and stopping the growth of an ever-expanding Federal Government.”

    No. Instead it’s “We need more Democrats.” Tow the party line.

  • 4N0NYM0U5

    Yeah, we don’t need more democrats. We just need people who aren’t uneducated.

    Not all democrats are educated, either. Nor are all republicans. Actually, anyone who claims to be a strong member on either side isn’t that educated.

    I don’t really care if I’m a republican or democrat. I never even bothered to look it up. I’m just my own party.

  • Claudia

    What gets me angriest is the snivelling little worms who complain that they are against DADT, but voted for fillibuster anyway (I’m looking at you Sen. Collins). You want to get away with bigoted votes and have the gall to expect to not be considered anti-gay. Not only to you lack common decency and a true respect for our troops, you don’t even have the courage of your misguided convictions. Strike that. I doubt you even have those convictions. You’re just perfectly willing to exploit and persecute the men and women who shed their blood for you if you think it offers you just a little bit of job security.

    In 20 years you will be shifting uncomfortably in chairs while trying to explain/apologize for your votes, just like the men and women who voted against the Civil Rights Act have had to do. But that doesn’t matter, as long as you can keep your job a little longer eh? Who gives a fuck about the jobs, the honor, the sacrifice of soldiers who put their lives on the line for you? Not, you, obviously.

    **Deep Breath** I hadn’t vented either…still pissed to the high heavens though. I know we’ll win in the end, but damned if it isn’t frustrating in the meantime.

  • Brice Gilbert

    Sadly voting for democrats is the only way this will change with this election. We are in a two party country and that is not going to change anytime soon.

    I sometimes wonder if hating Republicans is the right thing, but I think i’m to the point where I can with confidence say most Republicans are idiot. Democrats aren’t doing much to help us, but with people like Al Frankin I can at least see some humanity there. They also tend to be one the right side (but don’t do the right thing). Republicans are without a doubt always on the wrong side when it comes to social issues.

  • It seems to me that these anti-gay politicians (the GOP in particular) don’t have an empathetic bone in their body. If they were able to put themselves in the shoes of a patriotic gay/lesbian in the military surely they would be able to see how hateful and irrational this primitive piece of legislation really is.

  • And they still won’t come up with a better reason than that it might bother the homophobes. But they never explain why homophobes being bothered should trump gays being bothered.

  • The only party that will be guaranteed to removed DADT is the Libertarian Party. If you are sick of the games that both the R’s and D’s play, vote Libertarian, the only party to be truly concerned about the rights of all individuals, including atheists and gays.

  • Is it just me or did McCain’s behavior seem like the early signs of dementia to anyone else? I’m not being facetious – he reminded me of how my grandmother was about a year ago, and now she’s reached the point where she can barely remember my name and has no idea whether or not I’m still in high school.

  • SecularLez

    The majority of Americans want DADT and these a-holes in the Senate can’t even do what the majority of Americans want done.
    How sad is that?

    The Senate was one called the place where good bills die. Examples like DADT show that.

  • Chris

    This bill also had a number of riders on it in regards to military spending, immigration and so forth which was a mistake by the Democrats.

    Still, Obama should just sign it into law. He really should just take a stand here.

    Maybe the Greens will come up with someone who isn’t crazy next time around and I’ll vote for him/her. I want an actual liberal in the WH.

  • Charley Sheets

    If neither party represents my views, how could Democrats possibly be the answer?

  • Sven

    The issue comes down to dollars. If the military openly allows homosexuals to serve, then the next logical step would be to allow them to form domestic partnerships or marriages in accordance with local law. Family housing and allowances for housing already carry with them a significant pricetag for the military. I can’t image what the additional family support costs might eventually be.
    In my experience, soldiers already will marry one another in order to gain the advantages of married status (BAH $, the ability to move from the barracks, etc.). It is my belief that this is the true motivation for not withdrawing DADT.
    In my personal opinion, no soldiers should marry, period. Especially these days with the high rate of operations and deployments. It is brutally stressful on families, with or without children.

  • andrew

    I find myself most pissed off at the democrats for being spineless pussies and not getting this done.

    I don’t count on the R’s to do anything worthwhile; its the Dems that are supposed to be the progressives.

  • VXbinaca

    I wonder if the gays will lash out like they did in 2008 at blacks:


    I think we’re already seeing it with people calling the opposition “senile”.

    Some of you need to grow up and reach out to the other side if you want to succeed even marginally in the future.

  • ddr

    There was a time when McCain would have been behind this bill. But today he is afraid of not looking like a real conservative. He thinks he needs the Tea Party whack-a-loons on his side.

  • Bob

    DADT has always been wrong-headed, because while it was meant to prevent discrimination, it actually perpetuates the ignorance that makes said discrimination possible.

    We hear a lot about how it would demoralize the troops or interfere with unit cohesion, but frankly? We’re taking moral advice from a body that routinely churns out liars (Newt Gingrich), adulterers (David Vitter), and perverts (Mark Foley).

  • Kevin S.

    You know, I might be willing to just blame Republicans for being bigoted assholes if Harry Reid didn’t completely politicize the entire thing by not allowing the Republicans any amendments and running through a couple of amendments the Democrats really wanted. It wasn’t just about ending DADT – if that was really the primary goal, they would have thrown the GOP a small bone and gotten it done. Now Reid can sit back and blame the GOP for being obstructionist bigots, because people like you are unwilling to spread the blame to where it’s deserved. There are no innocent parties here.

    (Hemant says: Watch video from the Senate floor. Reid said he was willing to let amendments be debated, but there can’t be a discussion on amendments unless debate is *allowed*. Republicans unanimously stifled that from even happening. (And a couple Dems joined them).)

  • Silent Service


    You’re a tool. Tell me why we shouldn’t be allowed to have families and strive for happiness just because we’re in the service? You expect us to be robots without feelings or needs? You want to see the suicide rate shoot through the roof bar us from marriage and the bonds of love and support that go with them. Would you place the same restriction on cops and firefighters? They have similarly dangerous and stressful jobs. Idiot.

  • VXbinaca

    @Silent Service

    If he’s wrong, which he is, why stoop to ad homs?

    Be a man and challenge his ideas. Don’t act like a little child and call names.

    This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

  • alex

    Okay, this is pretty damn disgusting and shameful, but why does the Congress need to repeal DADT, especially after Sep. 9 ruling, when it was declared unconstitutional? Isn’t it ineffective now, anyway?

  • Bob

    Isn’t it ineffective now, anyway?

    @Alex: Prejudice never goes out of style. As long as people are capable of hate, it’s effective.

    It works on progressives, too. ;D

  • Cheryl

    Both bigotted senators from here in Alabama, Shelby and Sessions, voted against DADT. No surprise at that.

    Shelby hide behind the immigration issue saying, “What we should be voting on is the reauthorization of our military . . . but instead we got immigration and we got social policy stuff coming in there for political reasons.”

    Sessions was a little more honest by saying it was wrong to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” without completing a study on how it would affect readiness and troop morale. “The president made up his mind during the election to change this policy and he’s not concerned about what impact it has on the military.”

    I had contacted both senators on previous occasions and only received the usual upper class, white male, religiously bigoted condescension. I don’t understand how those two can be so homophobic when they’ve repeatedly screwed every Alabamian in the ass.

  • At least my Senators both voted ‘Yea’ even though Jim Webb was one of the ones who said he wouldn’t vote back in May.

    Unless the Democrats maintain control of the Senate in November, we’re going to have a hell of a time repealing this godawful act. We need Obama to do his job. This is unconstitutional, mean-spirited, and unfair to our serving men and women, and the ONLY reason anyone’s ever given is related to homophobia.

    America once more fails to make me think we’re being more progressive.

  • SecularLez

    Andrews, Dems are SUPPOSED to be progressive but for some time now, they have shown they’re quite spineless.
    It’s the reason I’d much rather give my money, time, etc. to the Green Party and Democratic Socialists of America.

  • Jim H

    Ok, lots

  • alex

    @ Bob:

    Prejudice never goes out of style. As long as people are capable of hate, it’s effective.

    I realize perfectly well that bigots and assholes are going to be out there no matter what, but we are talking about a law here. My impression was that, since it was declared unconstitutional in a federal court, it is no longer enforceable. If that’s the case, then why does it matter that the Congress repeals it ASAP? If not, please correct me.

  • VXbinaca


    Not necessarily. When aiming to take down laws like this you need to create what are known as “circuit splits”, thats divisions between federal circuit courts in how they rule on a law. Then it goes to the Supreme Court who decide on it once and for all.

    So in that district it’s null and void, but not everywhere. Another district or two and it’ll force SCOTUS’s hands.

  • p.s.


    This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals people much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

    fixed that for you. You can’t make blanket statements like that about people whose only connection is their sexuality. Rudeness has nothing to do with who you have sex with and connecting the two is absolutely ridiculous.

    Disco! He is the commander of the military. He can do it but won’t. Unlike health care, it’s the one place he’s constitutionally authorized to make bold moves like that. Yet he won’t do it.

    If anyone ever needed proof that he was a Christian, this is it.

    I agree I should do it, but I don’t think this is a result of christian beliefs. I think hes making a savvy political move. DADT has turned into a big issue, and although it may be well within his rights, many people will get pissed if they feel they don’t have some say in the process.

  • Muse

    This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

    Way to generalize. Yes, there are going to be GLBT persons who are rude, just as there are rude Christians and rude Atheists. But instead of recognizing that they’re just rude people, you cite their sexual orientation as a means to deny further contact.

  • Claudia

    I feel for those who are frustrated with the Democrats, but pretending like “they’re all the same” is patently false. Every single Republican voted against repeal. Almost every single Democrat voted in favor of repeal. There is a difference between the parties. Anyone who tells me we’d have the same country if John McCain were president, or that it doesn’t matter if Christine O’Donnell (rape victims should be forced to carry the rapists baby to term) is the next senator from Delaware or if its Chris Coons (pro-choice) is letting their understandable frustration cloud their judgement.

    I’m not saying that the Democrats couldn’t do more (obviously yes), but saying “they’re all the same” is false.

  • Silent Service


    Gee, I don’t know why we might be a bit rude and short tempered anymore. Having to listen to fundamentalist idiots spout their bigoted thinking day after day while looking down their nose at us leads to a short fuse. Especially when really stupid statements are tossed out by our supposed supporters like, this group should be denied marriage because they might get hurt doing their job and how horrible would that be for their spouse and children. Oh lord, please think of the little children!!! What a bunch of horseshit. I requested Sven’s arguments for his idiotic idea while pointing out some basic flaws in it, but pointing out that he’s a tool when he’s put forth such a stupid idea is a valid point that doesn’t really need additional support.

    Too often I hear the argument that you should only attack the idea and not insult the person. Oh don’t use ad homen attacks because you might hurt somebody’s feelings. That’s so rude and child like, you should be a man and not be a meanie like that. Sorry but Sven’s comment was and is patented stupid and he’s and idiot for putting it forward without thinking it through. I’m terribly sorry that I didn’t spell out exactly why he’s an idiot. It seemed sufficiently obvious to me that I figured you’d be able to figure it out.

    Oh, and I don’t like dealing with egotistically stuck up straight people who question my manhood. Why just a moment ago one of them made a presumptuous statement about not wanting to deal with homos because some of them are so rude without bothering to check to see if I’m male, female, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or simply a passionate supporter of LGBT rights. Generalize much dickhead? Oh, and just in case you miss it, you’re a dickhead for generalizing, not just because I feel like tossing ad homen attacks around.

  • Hamma

    As much as I would like to think electing democrats would help.. It would not. The entire place needs to be cleared out they are all useless and do not have Americans best interests at heart.

  • VXbinaca

    @Silent Service

    Wow, just wow. I never questioned your ‘manhood’, wrong M word, it was maturity.

    It’s not about their feelings, which really the root of it are yours being gratified by using puerile attacks on people. My objection to ad hom is purely because it turns minds off. Do you really think every person currently against the repeal are like those bigoted politicians you hate so much? Nope. Some of them just need to be talked to calmly and rationally, without the name calling and cursing. Like you’re doing to me.

    I almost always prefer calm, rational discussion and explanation to your antics, SS. None of the people on the FA forum are like you.

    All I hear from you is how much of a victim you are instead of what you’ll do to help repeal the law. Turn down the volume, stop whining and get to work on repealing it judicially.

    I want to see DADT repealed as well. When I point out your methods of arguing against it or dealing with the other side are counter-productive, you amp up what you were doing. Not very effective.

  • LeAnne

    I’m curious, does anyone know where I could find a list of who voted for/against the repeal of DADT? I’d like to see where my state senators stood on it (most likely, even our democrat senator voted against..)

    If anyone can find a link, that’d be sweeeeet. 🙂

  • Silent Service

    As much as I would like to think electing democrats would help.. It would not. The entire place needs to be cleared out they are all useless and do not have Americans best interests at heart.

    I hate this argument. Our leaders quite honestly do believe that they have the best interests of their constituents at heart. But everybody’s has an opinion and they never match exactly. The real problem is that being in power too long leads to the huge egos we see in our politicians. At some point, too many of them come to believe that they are always right, and no amount of evidence or pressure from their own constituents will change their mind. They come to believe that they know what’s best for us unwashed masses and that they have to tend to us like children. That’s the point where you need to vote your representatives out of office.

    The funny thing is, everybody always hates Congress, but usually reelects their own representatives because they’re okay. They look after me. If there were actually a threat of voting a majority of Congress Critters out of office, you might see some change. But the truth is, most people like their own Congressman and believe that the problem is everybody else’s Congressman.

  • VXbinaca



    @Silent Service:

    I’m waiting for an answer from you on your abrasive tone and words.

    Don’t channel your anger into uneffective ways of dealing with the problem, or me for that matter. We’re on the same side of the issue here. Get over yourself, go outside, take a deep breath and clam down. We’ll win in the end it’ll just take a little longer.

  • Nordog

    “We need more Democrats in the Senate.”

    Yeah, good luck with that.

  • worshipthis

    I don’t think Obama should execute an order repealing DADT. That would relieve our politicians and local communities from discussing the issue at length, which is an essential part of educating the public on the issue. There should be debate to let those who stand for and against be known.

  • Claudia

    @VXbinaca and SilentService, can we please not turn the thread into a flame war? Pretty please? SilentService, the person arguing against families did not do so in a gay-specific manner. In fact it’s clear they believe that soldiers should not be allowed to marry regardless of the gender of their spouse. This strikes me as not likely to be productive, but certainly not coming from a place of bigotry and certainly not worthy of your condemnation, which I would reserve for the Nays (except Reid, who voted Nay for procedural reasons). VXbinaca, I have a vague memory of issues with you and gays in the past, and saying “This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much” sure is a red warning sign to me, so you shouldn’t be surprised if your position comes off as suspect, though I tend to agree with you about argumentation. However in this thread I don’t think we’re going to find a lot of DADT supporters, so conversion is less the objective than venting, IMO.

  • stogoe

    If neither party represents my views, how could Democrats possibly be the answer?

    Because the Democrats aren’t actively trying to set the world on fire, and like it or not you only have two choices in November. You want to change the people in power? Vote in the primaries, where the character and values of Democratic politicians is up for a vote.

  • VXbinaca,

    Obama simply can not order it DADT away. It is the law pass by congress. Obama has the constitutional mandate to enforce DADT, even though he may or may not support such a law. Although it seems like it lately, the executive branch of the government can not simply pick and chose which laws they enforce, and how they enforce the laws.

    Nor is it clear that a civilian court has the jurisdiction to overturn this law. The battle over whether the civil courts can decide on this issue would probably take years to decide.

    Congress repealing the law might seem like the slowest and messiest way of doing it, but it is really the only way it can be done.

    I am disappointed in the Democrats, but the Republicans scare the hell out of me (and I don’t even believe in hell). I don’t want them in power. I am not particularly happy with the Democrats in my area, but damn it, I voted Nader and got Bush. I really don’t want that to happen again. Do you want Sen. Inhofe running the committee dealing with climate change? Do you want McCain chair the armed forces committee? Like it or not, we live in a two party system. And with the Republicans jumping off the deep end (terror babies), I want to do everything I can to keep them from power. Even if that means voting for a less than prefect party.

  • Silent Service


    I don’t think they take a roll call vote when the vote is to end debate. That’s the problem here. The bill isn’t even coming up for a vote in the Senate. The vote that failed yesterday is to end debate, not to approve the bill, and that takes 60 members. I always find it crazy that Senate can’t vote on appropriations bills unless at least 60 Senators agree (vote) to let it come to a vote. Why don’t they just say that bills can only be approved by the Senate on a Super Majority? That’s the effect of this procedure.

  • VXbinaca


    Then channel anger into a way to repeal the law. That anger is energy and I see a lot of it being wasted here.

    And what will it take to show I’m not one of them?

  • Flah the Heretic Methodist

    Okay guys, you have to think like a politician. This will not pass during a mid-year election year. Come back in 2011, and DADT will die the death it should have died. Maybe 2013, if Obama gets a second term and starts to feel safe — you see, the first four years are only used to cement the second four. (Think I might have met a few politicians in my time, or was I just born a cynic??)

    Meanwhile, my Yellow Dog card is still stamped and valid, and I really want that editorial cartoon with the caskets on a t-shirt. In the 50s it would have read, “which one is black?”. Our sons and daughters deserve better than DADT.

  • popvox

    Claudia: There are doubtless other candidates than O’Donnell or Coons with positions more in line with my views (this is an example, since I’m not in that district). In my opinion third party candidates are just as deserving, if not more, of the publicity, votes, and just money that you get when you take an R or a D next to your name.

    Hemant, the solution isn’t to advocate voting for more Democrats. We need to find people of all parties (and no party) who match our views, especially ones without the support and arm-twisting influence of the RNC or DNC, and promote them like mad.

    A vote for a third-party candidate is never wasted. Even if the candidate loses, the winner sees “These are the people I should court so I can win the next election, too.”

  • muggle

    VX, Silent Service is absolutely right about you. It’s the pot calling the kettle black frankly when you accuse people of being emotional. I find you extremely emotional. (And before you fire back, I admit to being emotional; I’m proud of being emotional and passionate about life and not a freaking robot. I care about shit.)

    As for not questioning his manhood, bullshit! You flat out did with this “charming” little nugget:

    Be a man and challenge his ideas. Don’t act like a little child and call names.

    It’s right up there for everybody to see. Don’t pretend it’s not and don’t think for a second your misdirection will work on the rest of us. Frankly, it doesn’t make you look like much of a man. Yes, I’m questioning yours. Mainly because you were the one who went there instead of putting forth a logical argument.

    Now that I’ve got my disgust at that bit off my chest, I’ll generally agree that we can’t trust the Democrats either but, let’s be honest, when it comes to human rights, they are heads and shoulders above the Republicans and they are getting worse because the Republicans are. In other words, they are getting away with being less sensitive because the Republicans are so bad that the Dems don’t have to work very hard to be the lesser of two evils.

    And I can’t help but think this vote would have gone very differently if there were more Democrats involved given the small number of Democrats that voted against it. Yes, that small number made a difference but that’s because of the number of Republicans (as in every single last one) who voted the repeal down.

    I’d love to see the two-party system broken but it can’t be done voting knee-jerk for just any third party candidate. You have to closely examine what any third party candidate wants to do to this country as well. Think long and hard about what the results would be for some of them. Many of the candidates proferred have been even worse than the Republicans.

    Yes, I agree. It’s depressing. Sad but true, a vote for Democratic over Republican is still a vote for human rights over all the power going to rich, white, male, hetrosexual Christians.

  • LeAnne:

    If your Senator is a Republican, they voted against the bill moving forward.

    If your Senator is a Democrat not named Blanche Lincoln or Mark Pryor, they voted for moving forward.

    (Reid also voted no, for strictly procedural reasons — you can’t bring it up again later unless somebody who voted no asks to.)

    This is why, for all my frustrations with the Democratic Party, we do in fact need more Democrats. At the very least, we need more Senators who aren’t Republicans — the two independents also voted Yes. The parties aren’t the same.

  • VXbinaca


    Come on, take that entire quote into context instead of out of it. It’s pretty short and shows I was being consistent. IE: Not calling him feminine, but immature. A child is immature and a grown man, most of the time, is mature. Maturity and manliness are two different things.

  • Silent Service


    What a bunch of sanctimonious bullshit. You have no idea of what I do in my community or what I do to work towards getting this crap law repealed. You and I have not had any regular contact and we have not had any major policy discussions that I am aware on here or anywhere else. You want a reasoned debate on this issue but nobody reasonable is coming here to the FA to join in your debate on the issues. Anybody with an open mind here has all ready been convinced that DADT needs repealed. Your smug superiority about remaining above childish name calling while saying many homos are rude just makes you a hypocrite.

    Worse, my issue with Sven isn’t that s/he supports DADT (he doesn’t). It was that idiotic statement about not letting military member get married at all. That’s a completely imbecilic statement that completely blows me away. The level of stupidity to put forth such a draconian idea as to basically want to reduce us military members to second class status as a whole is contemptible and shows that Sven is an idiot. Wait; make that third class status as we all ready have restrictions on our Freedom of Speech and Expression while on active duty.

    Stop clutching your pearls because you don’t like how I’ve expressed myself VXbinaca and get over yourself.

  • Peregrine

    Do the Republicans represent the values of the other guys? Probably not entirely, but the other guys are willing to compromise, because the Republicans are close enough. And they’re sure as hell not going to stay home. That’s why the evangelical movement and the far right has become such a powerful voting block.

    That’s one of the reasons it blows my mind that libertarians, especially atheist libertarians tend to lean to the Republicans. If you believe in human rights, gay rights, women’s rights, religious rights including but not limited to Judeo-Christian, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and science based policies, then why the hell would you vote for them in the current political climate? And why the hell would you stay home?

    And then we sit back and marvel at how things like the Tea Party can gain any ground at all, and why the Republicans are so willing to pander to them. And why the Democrats roll over so easily when their own base doesn’t give a shit.

    When it comes to votes, quality doesn’t matter as much as quantity. A highly educated and informed vote is precisely equal to a willfully ignorant vote.

    Staying home and not voting is a vote for the Republicans. Staying home and not voting is a vote for Obama and the Democrats to continue not having the balls to represent our values. A vote for apathy is a vote for the status quo in the deluded belief that eventually, something more representative of our values will come along, and the religious right can just continue to railroad over us in the meantime.

    We can’t afford to pass up the Democrats in the deluded notion that something better will come along.

    We need to form some kind of rational centrist voting block. We need to become the same kind of voting block that the religious right has managed to cultivate. They’ve managed to drive the Republicans so far to the right that they’re borderline certifiably insane. We need to drive the Democrats far enough to the left to start representing our values, and drive the Republicans to start making some goddamned sense.

    Voting Democrat is a vote against the Republicans, a vote against those who least represent our values, and a vote for the Democrats to realize that we are a force to be reckoned with, and that they will need to eventually move more towards our values if they want our continued support.

  • Can we get a modern discussion system that allows threaded replies? This feels like 1996.

  • William R. Dickson

    My understanding is that because the policy was established by an act of congress, it’s actually beyond the authority of the president to change it by executive order.

  • muggle

    Wow, XV, I didn’t blockquote your whole freaking thing so I must be taking it out of context, right?

    First of all, I didn’t recall myself if Silent Service was gay or not so I didn’t jump to the conclusion that he meant gay marriages and frankly in his protest about the ridiculous notion that the military shouldn’t be able to marry as having anything to do with homosexuality. Hell, for that matter, even if he is, I still don’t see that. He raised what I thought was a good protest against the statement that the military shouldn’t marry and/or have kids. In fact, I found nothing to add to it.

    But okay…

    If he’s wrong, which he is, why stoop to ad homs?

    What ad homs? I didn’t see any made.

    Be a man and challenge his ideas. Don’t act like a little child and call names.

    Here’s the nyah nyah insinuating Silent Service isn’t even a man. Of course, there’s nothing about his name that indicates his gender period but I got that you were calling him immature. You’re the one jumping to the conclusion that I thought you meant feminine. Uh, if I had, my rant to you would have been even longer because as a woman, I’d certainly demand to know why that’s an insult.

    This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.

    Pure bigotry here.

  • Claudia

    (well, at least I tried).

    And what will it take to show I’m not one of them?

    OK, I’m going to admit that I’m working on some pretty cloudy memories here, so feel free to contradict me if I get it wrong. From what I can recall, you once made the statement that you didn’t approve of homosexuality or didn’t like gays personally or something in that ballpark BUT that you fully supported civil equality (full marriage rights was the issue at the time, I think) for gays. If I’m mistaking you for someone else, please accept my profuse apologies and disregard this comment.

    At the time I remember thinking (and I hope writing) that what counted really was your support of full equality (as you again show here) but that your position on homosexuality should still be open to challenge on the basis of what I seem to remember was a not particularly impressive rationale. For the record, I don’t consider anyone who is for full equality of GLBT folks “one of them” and that of course includes you. That said, someone who expresses distaste for a huge swath of people on the basis of a condition they were born with will not go unchallenged by me, and should be unsurprised if they are not exactly welcomed with open arms by the community they dislike.

    Let me reiterate that if I’m mistaking you for another person or if you have not expressed disaste for gays or homosexuality generally, the above is null and void where you are concerned.

  • Silent Service


    Oh look, more sanctimonious bullshit while I was replying. If you call somebody a child and tell them to “be a man”, you’re saying they aren’t a man. And when you didn’t previously know my gender, that’s the stupidest kind of argument you can ever make. That you don’t even understand what you’re saying makes any argument you make just plain not worth listening too. STFU.

    I have lunchtime class people so feel free to abuse me while I’m out. But I don’t want VXbinaca worried when I don’t reply to him right away. He might pop the string in his pearl necklace. I have some analog life to attend too.

  • Hitch

    I see this as election politics. Midterm elections are near, and people try to rally their base. Cultural issues have been amplified by the republicans to organize a more severe backlash against Obama than his track record actually warrants. But it’s about winning elections so being crass and divisive is all fine and good if it gets out the vote of ones own side.

    The Rebublicans have a rough position. They have to find a way to sustain with the next generation. Right now young people are drifting away from the culture divide that is not still exploitable. Either people discover a new divide or all this will eventually change.

    And I wonder when the crass culture war strategy actually backfires. There are lots of conservative and right libertarians who want nothing to do with it.

  • Claudia

    @muggle, uhh, though I know I’m probably going to regret this, but regarding this:

    What ad homs? I didn’t see any made.

    Silent Service’s comment opens with “you’re a tool” and closes with “idiot”. If you didn’t see the ad-homs, you didn’t read the comment, I’m afraid.

  • Bob

    @VXBianca & SilentService:

    I understand Bianca’s point about stooping to ad hominem, however, it always floors me when someone flings a racial epithet (I’m Asian-American) at me, or talks about ‘those damned illegals’ without understanding we’ve been down this road before, so I understand SilentService’s anger at yet another round of DADT stupidity.

    It’s easy to say, ‘Your attitude isn’t helping,’ but what’s the alternative? Reason doesn’t seem to be winning hearts and minds, and if prejudice (or religion) is driving this, we’ll be here a long, long time waiting for these clowns to board the bus. Of late, I’m seeing a lot of progressives playing the same game as the evangelicals: you’re not a REAL progressive.

    Yet neither do I feel that anger is the answer, because I’m really dissatisified with myself when I *do* ‘lose my cool’ in the face of these closed-minded folk.

    I’m increasingly inclined to see Republican obstructionism as a form of addiction. They’re not going to change their ways until they hit bottom, and that means everything has to break or become invalidated for them to really embrace change. The Democrats are simply the codependents in this sick, sick equation.

  • saltdeezy

    I can’t believe Senator Reid himself voted nay…. WTF??

  • Ron in Houston

    I agree with all the folks that say neither party represents them.

    If we really want to fix the problem we first have to attack the party system. That is what’s ruining this country in my opinion.

  • littlejohn

    President Truman didn’t wait for Congress to act. Unlike Obama, he had balls. As commander in chief, he simply ordered an end to racial discrimination Period. Some old, conservative officers quit, but so what? We got over it. At the very least, Obama could make it clear he doesn’t want DADT enforced. He could do it today. He could have done it on his first day.

  • muggle

    Claudia, no, point well taken. Kind of glazed over that because I guess I basically agreed. It was my bad and you are right to call me out on that.

    The rest still stands. Frankly, I’m kind of fed up with VX’s gay bashing and have to wonder what scares him so much when it comes to allowing that gays are people. The feminine remark there kind of implies that he thinks they are all effeminate which is a stupid stereotype.

    He says he’s for their legal rights but every time he says that he counters it with some measure (though milder than most) of gay bashing. It kind of undoes any credibility as to treating them as equals.

    I’m done for today. I’ll be back on tomorrow unless real life gets in the way.

  • rerun

    re: saltdeezy

    He voted no so he could bring it up for vote in the future, it is a procedural maneuver.

  • Maliknant

    @ VXbinaca & Claudia

    I wish you two would stop throwing around the term ‘ad hominem’. It’s clear that neither of you know what it means. Name-calling is not the same thing as ad hominem abuse.

    SilentService called Sven a name, made his points via pointed questions, and then called him another name. That’s not ad hominem abuse, or the employment of some sort of logical fallacy. That’s Sven being called on his ridiculous and insulting post.

    @VXbinaca You’re a dick. If you want my argument for making that statement, read the bigoted, hypocritical crap you’ve been posting.

  • Claudia

    I wonder why I’m the only one that thinks of VX as female? Anyway, moving on:

    I can’t believe Senator Reid himself voted nay…. WTF??

    It was purely a procedural matter. He was of course in favor of repeal, but in the Harry Potter-esque wizardry that is Senate rules, he had to vote against the measure so that it could legally be brought up for a vote again at a later date. Don’t ask me why, but that’s the way it works. I’m guessing it has something to do with him being majority leader?

  • LeAnne


    And unfortunately, Nebraska is ridiculous for its politics..

    We have one “democrat” senator who consistantly votes repub (he’s the one who coined the term ‘cornhusker kickback’ when the health care bill was trying to pass), and the other’s just a staunch pro-life repub.. Nebraska always gets screwed with our senators/representatives because of all the old people clinging to old ideals about ‘freedom’.

  • LeAnne


    Thank you for finding that link for me. I’m surprised to know that our “democrat” who always votes republican ACTUALLY voted yes.

  • Eilonnwy

    I agree. The whole thing just makes me sick.

  • Claudia:

    Basically, the measure can’t be brought up for a vote again unless somebody who voted “no” asks for it to be reconsidered. It doesn’t have to be the Majority Leader, he’s just the one who always does it.

  • Would just like to reiterate that “you’re an idiot” is not ad hominem, nor is “you’re an idiot, and here’s why”, nor is “you are wrong, and therefore an idiot”. They may be unhelpful, or off-putting, or rude, or any number of other things, but they are not ad hominems.

    This is an ad hominem: “you are an idiot, and THEREFORE wrong”. It is a logical fallacy, not a tonal criticism. It is an illogical statement, owing to the fact that it bases its dismissal of an argument on some trait of the arguer, rather than on the argument itself.

    Name-calling is neither necessary nor sufficient for an ad hominem.

  • Nick

    I don’t think blindly voting democrat helps the country. What about the secular Republicans and Libertarians? Most of them are on board with repealing DADT. Moreover, they wouldn’t vote for other dumb things that drive us further into debt.

  • Nordog

    Here’s a straightfoward (no pun) question:

    Wasn’t DADT initiated through an executive order issued by Bill Clinton?

    If so, as CIC, why can’t Obama just lift DADT with an executive order?

  • Obama just needs to do this. Make it so, Number 1.

    It’s not so much the Republicans in congress. It’s the Christians that hate gays that install fear in them, worrying more about getting re-elected than doing the right thing. At least 2 of them broke party lines.

    And kudos to Al Franken. He’s been a great Senator.

  • Vene

    To the people who are saying that the Democrats are to blame and not the Republicans I have to say this. If the Democrats are in charge, the gripe is that they’re not moving forward towards positive change very fast and it gets stalled at every opportunity. If the Republicans are in charge, the gripe is that they are actively making it worse. I much prefer agonizingly slow progress over agonizingly fast destruction. And, ultimately, I cannot vote for the party that says I should not lawfully be able to love who I do.

  • Hitch

    Just because there is this discussion what an ad hominem is.

    “You are an idiot” can be no ad hominem, but if the claim is in any way implicitly or explicitly used to dismiss or diminish the views of the other person it absolutely is.

    Now there is actually no reason to call anybody an idiot if one does not intend followup judgments to color the debate.

    Name calling very often has this very an implicit ad hominem quality, even if the fallacious clause is not spelled out.

  • Bob


    The problem with the Democrats is that they overpromise and underdeliver. The wait for this ride is 15 minutes, when it’s really eight years. At some point, ‘slow and steady’ doesn’t cut it, and the reality of ‘spineless, lying bastards’ begins to set in.

    The only promise they’ve kept is not to prosecute Bush and his gang of war criminals.

  • McCain: “Lalalalalalalalala!!!! I can’t hear you!”

  • Vene

    Bob, I am aware of this, it pisses me off. But, how is this preferable to McCain/Palin? See, Sec of State Clinton has changed the rules for passports for transsexuals, which my girlfriend is, which would allow her to get one with the female sex designation. This is called “very good.” Would this have happened under a Republican Secretary of State? I really don’t think so. I’ll take minimal progress over regression any day.

  • Silent Service


    The difference is that I called Sven an idiot because his view was so easily shown to be stupid. I did not say that his view was stupid because Sven is an idiot. The two concepts are easily confused but not the same.

    The same thing goes for VXbinaca. His views are not bad because he’s a homophobic. He is considered to be homophobic because he has a history of making slightly homophobic statements like, “This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to.”

    Thus calling Sven and idiot for making stupid comments about military people (gay or straight) being allowed to marry, and calling VXbinaca a homophobe for calling homosexuals rude is fair game and not an ad homen attack. They’re just personal observations that you can judge for yourself based on the evidence they have provided.

  • Silent Service

    For the record, anybody who points out that I’ve been rude today gets no argument from me. I have been very rude to Sven and to VXbinaca due to my very low oppinion of their comments today. I most certanly can’t deny that. I just don’t have a problem with telling the people that they’re speaking pure stupid today, or calling them idiots when they do.

  • rat

    PLEASE. A democrat in congress?

    As a rationalist how can you stand the democrat policies (such as unemployment plans, and health plans)?

    What we need are rational thinkers who understand the market, understand psychology, and will be able to make decent choices.

    1) Fight for civil liberties
    2) Don’t make the health care crisis worse by encouraging the market to have worse care by either a) requiring everyone to get car insurance or b) making a public option
    3) Get rid of the silly no-buying-insurance-across state lines law
    4) Get rid of silly social programs that are outside the governments job description (which is to protect the liberties of the its people)

    blah blah blah

    basically – don’t vote republican and don’t vote democrat – neither of them get it right.

  • Ibis

    I’ll say again, I really hope that the U.S. Senate joins us in the 21st century (okay, so we got rid of the ban against gays in the military back in 1992 but let’s not quibble) sooner rather than later. I’d pray for it, if I thought it would do any good.

  • Ben

    ” We need more Democrats in the Senate”
    Yes. We do need more Democrats because they are the only ones who have the courage to move on this vote. Does anyone think the Republicans will vote “yes” for repeal. If you do you don’t understand politics. But you notice the vote count? The Dems lost 3 votes including Harry Reid who voted “no” for procedural reasons so he could bring the bill back up in December. Which the political climate will be better for repeal.
    Democrats brought it up before the election to motivate the base and the Republicans blocked it to motive their base. Easy.

    Now, the reason the bill didn’t pass was politics: pure and simple.

  • Vev

    I’m gonna be the only person who backtracks and sticks up for this Sven character.
    Their last statement “It is brutally stressful on families, with or without children.” makes it clear to me that they weren’t saying that military members shouldn’t be able to ‘strive for happiness’ but rather that being married in the military is stressful and sometimes better avoided. I also don’t think Sven was saying it should be banned all together, but I could just be reading his statements differently because I somewhat agree with them.

    The reason I took his statements to mean something different than Silent Service is because I am married into the military life and my marriage is absolutely tried and tested by that alone. Do I think my husband and I shouldn’t be married because it’s hard? No, but I can completely understand why someone would say military members shouldn’t marry. Divorce rates are high in the military and as for suicide rates, SS, they are high whether the victims are married or not. And to be honest is a man that kills himself better off because he had a family? No, in fact now his family has to suffer the tragedy as well.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure family support and bond helps many many soldiers get through the day. But with stress and fighting, sometimes all it does is put an extra stress on an already stressful life.

    Out of all of my husbands military friends, my husband and I are the only ones that haven’t gotten a divorce in the past few years and we have definitely had a few close calls. I’m also not saying that people outside of the military don’t have problems or get divorces. And maybe it’s just because my husband’s job has the highest suicide rate of any military job, but I constantly see a trend: horrible marriages, ending in divorce.

    It sounded to me as though Sven believes military members shouldn’t be able to marry as to save them and their families from unneeded stress and heartbreak when they are shipped across the world. While I don’t agree that marriage should be banned, I understand where Sven is coming from.

  • Joshua White

    I’m either not voting the next couple of times or voting for an unelectable person who represents me. All this voting for the lesser of two evils just gets you the lowest common denominator. If more repubs get into office don’t blame me, offer

    His stance on judicial issues makes him unelectable, never mind cowardice on DADT.

    Senate Democrats
    The repubs did not need 60 votes to get shit done when they were in power. They are spineless incompetents who might fold to aggressive opponents if they had 80 seats never mind 60. The filibuster is a procedural rule they could get rid of with a simple majority vote. They like it too much to get rid of it.

    House Democrats

    Just as spineless to repub aggression.


    Not a chance of getting my vote. I might rethink my view of the supernatural if I found a republican that I could consider voting for.

  • Steve

    No. DADT was enacted in 1993 as part of the NDAA. It’s a law.

    That’s the whole problem with it. Before DADT, the “gay ban” was a military policy. Now, even the military actually wanted to get rid of it, they couldn’t. Congress has to remove the law and then count on the military to implement non-discrimination rules (even that was removed from the bill to even get it this far).

    The other solution is to count on a recent court case that declared DADT unconstitutional. If the DoJ doesn’t appeal, the court could conceivably issue an injunction against enforcement. Better than nothing, but it probably wouldn’t go over as well as a clear cut legislative repeal.

  • gmarcotte

    I hate DADT as much as anyone, but the Dems really shot themselves in the foot on this one. First, why tack it (and not to mention the DREAM act) onto a defense appropriations bill? And second, why not wait for the Pentagon review? We already know the Republicans will jump on any semblance of parliamentary tricks and use it as an excuse to vote no. Instead, put up a simple bill that DADT is repealed, bring it to a vote, and force the Republicans to stand up and say “no, I don’t want LGBT in the military.” If they still all vote No (even if it passes), then a post with this title would be appropriate. As it is, this move was clear pre-election politics, and served only to further polarize the extremes and further disillusion the middle about the possibility of competent government.

  • Vene

    Oh, and when my senator says things like this I’m going to fucking vote for the man.

  • Silent Service


    In my current job for the military (I am a retired military member and a government contractor now) I get stuck sitting through one suicide incident report after another. You talk anecdotally about what you’ve seen, I live and work that shit every day, day after day. I get to see the numbers and have to sign the non-disclosure statements barring me from discussing the details of these briefings. It’s depressing and disturbing the stupid crap they come up with to try to put a bandage on the military’s suicide problem. Baring military personnel from marriage because theoretically somebody might have their emotional wellbeing hurt by somebody’s future suicide/death/divorce/deployment is a flawed and absolutely stupid as a concept. You’re talking about taking a fundamental right away from somebody because of a theoretical emotional trauma that may happen in their future. Everybody who goes through the stress of divorce, or has to sit by and wait for loved ones to return home from high risk jobs is hurt by it. Shouldn’t we ban marriage under that concept? Or perhaps we should ban divorce since that’s a risk factor in suicide? Cops and firefighters also have high divorce rates and high suicide rates. Should we ban them from marriage or eliminate those career paths for civilians and militarize them under your no marriage military? It’s a stupid concept.

    It is a stupid argument to deny somebody a fundamental right (see Loving vs. Virginia) because of a theoretical emotional trauma that might be suffered by the persons involved at some unknown point in the future. It is also fundamentally stupid to make military service that much less desirable. We already surrender a portion of our Free Speech and Free Expression rights when we join the military. Those restrictions discourage many qualified personnel from even considering military service. Restricting marriage would mean anybody wanting to stay in the military till retirement would have to give up 20 to 30 years of any potential relationships. How many people will be willing to do that? And how about our military leadership? Flag officers can have service times from right out of high school well into their 60s. You’re asking them to go all the way to actual retirement age unmarried. That’s a wonderful idea. Those 4 star generals and admirals don’t really want to have families. They’ll give up the idea of happy families for love of country. Standing up to defend Sven because you understand how the risks associated with military service have caused some people emotional pain and suffering is idiotic.

    I have at home a set of appreciation certificates from President Bill Clinton. They are not for my military service. They are for my service as a military spouse. My wife is also a military retiree. I understand the potential pain of loss and the stress that goes with having a military spouse as well as the stress and emotional hardship of being an active duty member. Try again. Tell me that my three children shouldn’t exist because of some theoretical harm if I’d been killed on a deployment. Tell me we had no right to bring them into the world because we had to move every 2 to 4 years and they went through the pain of having to make new friends all the time. I can comprehend where Sven’s idea comes from, but it is still an indefensibly stupid idea and he is an idiot for making it. You should think about exactly how stupid it is before you defend him.

  • Samiimas

    Do you really think every person currently against the repeal are like those bigoted politicians you hate so much? Nope. Some of them just need to be talked to calmly and rationally, without the name calling and cursing. Like you’re doing to me.

    Oh hey another straight person saying gay people would have equality if they just stopped being so rude and calling people bigots because they oppose letting us have equal rights. That if we only kissed their ass and reassured them theirs nothing wrong with their stance they’d change it.

    Tell us about how well that worked fighting prop 8, a campaign so dedicated to being ‘polite’ that they hardly even acknowledged they had gay people involved.

    You keep trying your strategy of not challenging them in any serious way, I’ll continue actually calling them out on their bullshit and forcing them to explain themselves. We’ll see who’s more effective.

  • Silent Service

    I will agree with you on Senator Franken. I was not a big supporter before he finally won his seat. But since he took his seat I have become an ever greater fan. Senator Frankin, thank you for your service to us.

  • Silent Service


    Attempts to get an independent bill repealing DADT through the Senate Armed Services committee would fail. That’s why it was attached to the annual Appropriations Bill.

  • Silent Service

    Um, hey Samiimas, I don’t think the homophobes actually want us to kiss their asses. Well, maybe some do, but only when we’re on a church sanctioned retreat and in a private motel; but certainly not in public.

  • AxeGrrl

    VXbinaca wrote:

    This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude. I want equal rights for them but a lot of them are so unpleasant to be around or listen to

    Uh, that statement could just as easily apply to heterosexuals. Rudeness definitely isn’t correlated to sexual orientation any more than it is to hair colour.

    I think you need to get out more.

  • AxeGrrl

    Rarian Rakista wrote:

    Can we get a modern discussion system that allows threaded replies? This feels like 1996

    For the love of Pete, please noooooooooo!

    I HATE the threaded format ~ I hate having to click every single individual post just to see it….

    Quote the person and/or post you’re responding to and everything’s clear.

  • Neon Genesis

    “This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much.”

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe that’s why they’re so “rude” to you? I hope you realize that I’m gay, VXbinaca. I thought this site was the Friendly Atheist but I guess it’s ok to stereotype gays.

  • Danielle

    If you guys don’t want to vote Democrat or Republican, then vote Libertarian. They want to repeal DADT too, but they don’t have the cons of the Democratic party.

  • Jon

    LeAnne: I’m Nebraskan too. Actually, Nelson voted yea on this one and he’s been publicly in favor of the present DADT repeal language for months. Johanns was the one who got my unhappy e-mail and will continue to do so until he changes his mind. 🙂

    Neon Genesis: Hemant is certainly the friendly atheist, and I’m sure most of his readers/commenters are, too. Including myself.

  • Troglodyke

    That’s one of the reasons it blows my mind that libertarians, especially atheist libertarians tend to lean to the Republicans.

    Not me. I lean slightly left but vote Libertarian whenever possible.

    What I really don’t get is gay Republicans. I know some, and they are nice people, and I understand they don’t want to be Democrats, but do they seriously hate themselves so much that fiscal issues trump who they are allowed to be with? And these days, Repubs are crappy with money, too.

    So, really, what is the draw to gays for being Republican? It just smacks of self-loathing. Conservative, I might get. But Republicans in 2010 are NOT conservative. They are puppets of the Religious Reich.


  • thats what happens when only a handful of congress folks have children in the military… they are CLUELESS

  • Siamang

    VXbianca said:
    “This is why I don’t deal with homosexuals much. Some of them are so rude.”

    gee…. imagine anyone being rude to YOU, after a comment like that! Niceness streams right out your asshole like sunshine.

    Pssst, who sent out the Troll-Signal? Did this get cross posted to LibertarianWackaloon.org?

  • Jonathan Robertd

    I think we should start this facebook Meme:

    This is a test of your Faith in Prayer. Do you Believe the United States is a Christian Nation? Do you Believe the Constitution was Inspired by God? Do you Believe God chose America to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ? Show your Faith in Prayer this Election Day. Pray instead of Voting. If you need to vote, your Faith isn’t Strong Enough. Trust God: Pray, Don’t Vote! Copy and repost.

  • Vene

    Libertarian? No thanks. I happened to like it that when I graduated college and couldn’t find work that I could get on welfare and afford to eat and look for work. I’ve always found the “small government” thing to be childish anyway. It’s not the size of the government that makes it effective, it’s how the government is set up.

    Also, Libertarians and Republicans have roughly the same economic philosophy. This is what happens economically under each party. I’m not in the 95th percentile (or even 80th), as such, I don’t want those policies.

  • Hugh

    The difference between the parties in a nutshell: repubs are evil and democrats are cowardly.

    We need more democrats because they are marginally better, but more importantly, as someone said, we need BETTER democrats.

  • gsw

    When are they voting for a “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy for religion?

    That would be really cool!
    No head-banging, no book-burning (OT/NT), no preaching, no special privileges or non-uniform clothing.

    Oh and maybe one for gender?

  • AxeGrrl

    great ideas gsw! 🙂

  • Drew M.


    I don’t know whether to blame Republicans for blocking equality to gain votes, or Christians who push this idiotic notion that giving GLBT people the same rights as everyone else will make our society worse, or President Obama for not simply signing an Executive Order to end DADT.

    Holytape mentioned this but it seemed to get lost in the noise. DADT was a law passed by Congress and as such, it cannot be ended by an Executive Order. It can only be repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court. This is not a power held by the Executive Branch.

    I’d hate to say something in your blog makes you look ignorant, but, um. This does.

  • Steve

    Yeah, he could sign an executive order to suspend in the discharges. That’s part of his power to issue stop-loss orders to the military when there are manpower shortages.

    And while it would be impossible to put the genie back into the bottle (or the gays back into the closet), the next president could just rescind it.

    And not doing that was part of the deal the White House made with the Pentagon and the Republicans to even get this far.

  • Kevin S.

    Vene, Libertarians and Republicans do NOT have the same basic economic views. They used to, but Republicans only use “small government” as a talking point – they fund their expensive programs through massive deficit spending instead of the higher taxes and slightly-less-massive deficit spending of the Democrats. There hasn’t been a true small-government Republican in the White House in decades.

    Further, calling the idea of small government childish is rather naive. Government taxes suppress economic efficiency – fact. Government spending initiatives distort the free market – fact. Now, governments exist to fill in where free markets fail, so as a society we need to accept some level of inefficiency, some level of distortion in order to allow the government to fill in the gaps. From there, our disagreements simply stem from which, and how many, gaps need to be filled. Believing in less interference and having fewer gaps to fill isn’t childish, it’s a differing viewpoint. The only thing childish here is thinking that your view is the only view.

    I am a small government person, economically and socially. That means I think the government shouldn’t be interfering in what people do in their private lives. Whether or not they want to do drugs. Whether or not they want to pay for their sex. Whether or not they worship a god. Who they want to marry (so long as it’s consensual and adult). Are these views childish? Or is it not childish to be small government in the areas you agree with the ideas?

    Am I overreacting? Certainly. But your dismissal of an economic philosophy is rather off-putting, and the way you did it makes you sound like you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. If I’m wrong, perhaps we can discuss this like adults instead of just making blanket putdowns on ideas.

  • Vene

    I dismiss your economic policy because I have been through it before and it is nonsense. I also love how you assume I’m pro-free-market. I am not. Fuck the free market. I want a fair market. The strongest economies in the world for the past few decades (at least) have been those with a mixed economy; a combination of free enterprise, a strong welfare system, and regulations to keep the private sector in line. Unlike your citationless “facts” I will do something to back it up. Look at the Human Development Index. What do you see at the top? I’ll answer it for you, nations with mixed economies. Of those which have economies closer to the free market ideal, well, it includes Iceland and Ireland, both were hit fucking hard during the recent economic collapse, to the mention the US. Whereas those which were more socialist, like Norway and Sweden, they are doing fine. Norway, for example, has the world’s strongest currency. From wiki, “Following the ongoing financial crisis of 2007–2010, bankers have deemed the Norwegian krone to be one of the most solid currencies in the world.”

    Besides, who the fuck are Libertarians supposed to vote for? Let me guess, the Republican, Ron Paul. Or the other Republican, Rand Paul. Or other, other Republican, Bob Barr.

  • Kevin S.

    Not only do you still not understand what I’m for, you’re making up things I said. Not once did I claim that you were for free markets. Further, I said that governments exist to fill in the gaps where free markets fail… which sounds a lot like the mixed economy you were talking about. You seem to think that A) Republicans and Libertarians have the same economic ideas (wrong) and B) Libertarians are some kind of anarcho-capitalists (again, wrong). You may have cited facts, but what you don’t have is any reading comprehension. That’s okay though, I eagerly await seeing what you pretended I said next.

  • Kevin S.

    You know what else you see at the top of that list? Much smaller nations, with much more homogeneous populations than the US. I could argue that the solution is therefore to split the US into five or six smaller countries, each following their own cultural beat. Black people get the southeast. Hispanics the southwest. Orientals the West Coast. White people the midwest. Middle Easterners the Northeast. Native Americans get fucked (again). Hey, it would make us more like the nations at the top of that list!

    Of course, that’s a facile argument, just as the argument that we need to be “more socialist” because Norway is #1 on the list. There are a multitude of factors that go into those rankings, and economic system is just one. The US is also doing a lot better than a number of the more socialist-leaning countries on the list, as are Ireland and Iceland (how the fuck did they wind up #2? I thought they were screwed?!).

  • keystothekid

    Maybe Mccain is repeating “that is not the policy” so many times so he can try and convince himself that the lie he’s telling is the truth.

  • Silent Service

    Kevin S.

    Your argument on size has no merit considering the size of Ireland and Iceland. Your argument on homogeneous populations has little merit considering the number of Islamic immigrants in Norway. In addition, you didn’t answer Vene’s question about who to vote for that would have an actual chance to be in Congress or the White House.

    Present some evidence for your position and quit making crap up.

  • Iceland and Ireland both do quite well on that list posted, so I fail to see how they have no merit. I’m using her data, so don’t accuse me of making crap up. The US is by far the largest country anywhere nearing the top of that list, so yes, wondering if country size has something to do with it is very relevant. Regarding the diversification A) Norway is not nearly as diverse as the US, and B) I merely noted that it was a difference between the two countries. I have no idea if country size or diversity of population or degree of government intervention or recent history of being more technologically and politically advanced (the top twenty-one countries on the list are either in Western Europe, former well-developed colonies of Great Britain or Japan). But I didn’t just take one of those factors, point to the list and say “See? Proof!”

    My objection was to her calling people who believe in a small government “childish” – that’s not the same as voting Libertarian, but what the hell, I’ll answer it anyway. Rand Paul is libertarian like the Teabaggers are libertarian. Bob Barr wrote DOMA – I don’t care if he’s repudiated it, he’s DQ’d himself from my ballot.

    Ron Paul is a very intelligent man who has a history of putting his religious convictions behind his small-government convictions when it comes to prostitution and the war on drugs, but who hasn’t done that on abortion and has said different things regarding SSM, none of which is what I want to hear from my candidate. Barack Obama is a very intelligent man who, even allowing that we have very differing opinions on how active the government should be in fiscal and monetary policy, does not appear to know what he’s doing economically. He also has actively fought LGBT rights, despite promising to be an advocate for them. In bad economic times, I’d want the fiscally responsible person. In better times, I’d take the guy who, hopefully, would advance the social issues I value.

  • We do not need more Democrats in Congress; we need more progressive Democrats in Congress.

  • Conasta

    Best to ignore the ever-ranting old man McCain.
    McCain is pretty much lost, fumbling about and is long over due to retire.
    He’s having difficulty remembering what he thinks as it changes on a regular basis. I’ve never seen such an extreme barrage of repetitious flip-flopping, and his decline is sad to watch.
    He’s gone from an electable liberal Republican in AZ that worked both sides of the aisle, to a conservative Republican, who would begin to pile on with the staunch party of No, and now he resorts to Tea bagging it with newly found anti-immigration and DOMA rantings.

    His support on issues and his color of red seems to change with the donor support of the day, and with his attempts to meet the requisites demanded of him, as he jumps through hoops to pass the new Bush era Republican’s litmus tests.

    It’s embarrassing to me to watch him dig deeper and deeper, he just needs to stop.

    Way to ruin a good Republican.

  • Keyboredist

    Fuck you all!!! If you were just a normal person minding your bisnus in the milatary and suddenly this gay guy(or girl) started flirting with you…would you want to talk to them??? Some people are ok with gay…others are creeped out by it…it’s not natural and there is no sinetifec evidence that anyone can be born that way…oh, and it doesn’t happen in animals so why should it happen in humans???

  • Actually, my 2 male dogs F**k each other. It is natural, I Swear!!!

error: Content is protected !!