Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5991

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

The Senate might be having a vote today on whether to have a vote on repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. It looks like Harry Reid might have screwed it up again, although Republicans don't seem interested in repealing anyway. I don't think either party cares about repealing DADT. It suits their purposes to keep it around.

http://gay.americablog.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What concerns me most about the repeal of DADT is that the military already has a litany of issues that go unchecked by our federal government without adding our gay/lesbian soldiers to the list. War crimes, male to female sexual harassment/discrimination, etc. Alot of this is still being unreported by the mainstream media and more importantly, unreported by the victims of such crimes. Do we need to add our gay soldiers being violently beaten to death to the list by angry, homophobic mobs of people?

While I think it's unfair that gays can't serve openly in the military, I think it's better(at least for now) that they don't. Do I think a soldier who comes out should be fired or lose his benefits for doing so? Absolutely not. But I think, as homophobic as it is, I think it's really for everyone's protection that DADT not be repealed. The only way I see that ever happening is when there's a draft(not if, but when) and they don't have enough men serving in the military. And that would be a total nightmare. I can't imagine myself, out and proud, being forced to serve in the military with just such rude, bigoted assholes.

Edited by bellcurve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Shockingly :rolleyes: , the repeal failed to get enough votes.

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/12/breaking-loss-for-dadt-repeal-as-senate.html

I can't help agreeing with those who feel that Obama wants this policy to stay around, as does the Democratic Party, both because it's easier for them and also because they figure it will make activists blame Republicans and turn negative attention towards them.

What I hate most about this is how this basically validates McCain's bitterness and open contempt for everyone, including top military leaders, who do not parrot him. The media has also gone along with this. The media always seems to make sure they find, and broadcast, voices that will tell us all about the dangers of anything which is not anti-gay.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012010015

I also see that "moderate" Scott Brown voted against repeal. Big surprise there. I tend to remember him for his comments about gay parents, so anything else he does along these lines is just being true to what he's done all along.

Edited by CarlD2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think thye just need to repeal it, and get it over with. If these military men don't have the emotional discipline to get over being naked in front of a gay man, then they need not be in the military. I had a boyfriend years ago who was an MP in the air force, and he had issues in being open. He wouldn't kiss me in public, etc (He wasn't in the military any more when I dated him) If Canada can handle it, then why can't WE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The House is voting on the standalone repeal at the moment. The Senate is where the problem will be, and where this would take a lot of work to actually pass.

SLDN is tweeting on the vote. I have to laugh at the far right Congressman who says that nations who have openly gay soldiers are crumbling -- those are most of our allies.

http://twitter.com/FreedomToServe

And here's the Marine commander basically saying that, I don't know, soldiers will lose their legs if they serve with openly gay soldiers?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2aGMFXuk0DUVjYib3Fs7g9IMCQA?docId=CNG.9d86bd1b9e1dcce9c1b3a0448d6af28b.a21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Right. Literally for decades, soaps mesmerized their audiences with tales of romance, family conflict, class struggles, and recognizable interpersonal-relationship sagas. We didn't need relentless, heavy violence. We didn't need clones, mad scientists, extra-terrestrials and demon possessions. We didn't need gaggles of plastic himbos and bimbos pushing beloved vets off-screen. We only needed to see people whom we cared about, and the intelligent, moving progression of their lives. Flashy sets, gaudy gimmicks, and high-falutin' hairdos be damned. The characters and the words were important.
    • Absolutely! Brad should've simply moved on from Lunacy. There's no point of freeing her, if you're not going to at least make an attempt at redemption or incorporating her into the fold. It happened with Quinn, who committed quite a few felonies before become the Forrester Matriarch.  Heck, keep Lunacy in prison and have Poppy/Finn discover that she gave birth to twins - 'Sunny' could've come on with a clean slate and still had Sheila/Finn and all the other drama. It certainly couldn't have been worse than what we've witnessed with the destruction of $B.    
    • I would enjoy it if Swan popped up on BTG as an old one time friend/mentor of Anita’s for a cameo. This is just

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I had totally forgotten that Courtney story. I see Burton was already phoning it in by that point.
    • omg I completely missed that, but now when I see it typed here in your post, it's obvious icky cringe. So now I just checked and Tomas said that -- on May 27 that he likes the author Carl Ivati.  He said it with sort of an accent, so I didn't catch the stupid joke or think about the spelling.   I remember when that aired, that I actually said to myself at the time, "I wonder if that's a Latin American author, and I will have to google him later." And now I see your post, and I see. Well that's cringe, and I feel stupid to have fallen for it.

      Please register in order to view this content

         
    • There's a lot you don't need if you have the writing.  You don't even need large casts!  You could make do with a cast of 12-18 actors if the writing is there.
    • Thank you. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sleeping around if your spouse actually knows about it. She’s just a cheating slut.
    • OMG...Robert Mandan! And Donna Mills is a child. I keep hoping for more of early Ross/Vanessa.
    • I get your point, but I also know that if the roles were reversed -- if a man were screwing around on a woman this way -- everyone would be all "All with his head!" When I say Vanessa needs therapy, I'm actually being kind, because I could begin and end with the fact that she's a cheating slut.
    • Is nobody going to mention the cringefest that is 'Carl Ivati'?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy