U.S. Senate blocks repeal on gays in military law
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Millions in global aid for Iraq remain unspent
( 0 )
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 5 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 1 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
16 Comments
Login to comment
0
SolidariTea
Pure kabuki. Obama and the Dem majority could have repealed this ages ago
0
smithinjapan
The GOP is a distusting farce of a political body. They have vowed to block EVERYTHING until the tax breaks for millionaires are extended, even just yesterday blocking health care for heroes of 9/11. And here they are again blocking something.
In other words, until they get their way, no one in the country gets a single thing; their priority is, literally, to benefit 3% of the nation. Gays didn't stand a chance, here.
0
TimRussert
You know nothing about the US, mr smithinjapan. Millionaires? The current administration defines 'rich' as a couple with an income of about 250 thou/year. But many couples making that kind of money do so only for a few years. And it is often before or while sending kids to university - which can run to 30 or 40 thou/year these days.
0
TimRussert
This made me laugh. So thanks.
0
smithinjapan
TimRussert: "You know nothing about the US, mr smithinjapan."
Whenever a person who is not American hits the nail on the head about the GOP or the Republican candidate in question (if an election cycle), and you guys have no proper retort, you either say this or single out the person's nationality (as you always try to do with SushiSake and Australia), when in fact it's quite clear that we know as much or more than the people to closely infected by the GOP politics.
The fact of the matter remains: the GOP is acting like a whining toddler, saying if they don't get the tax bill passed including cuts to 3% of the population (or 'the rich'), they will block EVERYTHING. Do you not think that is VERY immature for so-called political 'leaders'? They don't even care what it's about -- they just said they'll block it, bottom line. They have denied 9/11 victims health care, and in this case have blocked a repeal on a discriminatory law (in other words, denying heroes and your average Joes their rights and freedoms, not to mention denying what they did on 9/11). At least in the case of the DADT repeal they have been against it from the get go, but still doesn't change the fact that they proudly proclaimed they'll block anything else until they get their way.
"This made me laugh. So thanks."
What it should do is make you sad, Tim, given that that's the kind of politics and beliefs you're buying into and even voting for, but hey... the GOP supporters often do have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees (or at least pretending they didn't just cut the forest down to make a quick buck).
The military law is a relic from the days of people scared silly and paranoid about homosexuality (from a party where politicians literally try to make bathroom stall deals for pleasure with the guy next to them, for that matter!). The sooner it's repealed, the better.
0
TimRussert
Actually, in the US - where we used to have a draft - the law preventing gays from entering the military was something Lefties opposed to Vietnam were grateful for. I knew many an old hippie back home who got out of going to war by telling the draft board he was queer.
Like I said - you don't know much about the US.
0
TimRussert
The Democrats are the party of the rich. Do the research for yourself. Open Secrets dot org . The wealthiest zip codes in America voted for Obama in 08. Americans know this.
0
hottomales
equals changing the topic. The charge was that the GOP vowed to block everything until they got their way on one issue. The details of the issue hardly matter. The substance of the issue hardly takes priority over blatant discrimination against gays.
0
hottomales
You must be talking to yourself. Using a bad law to dodge the draft does equal support for the law. Those same people you speak of, when asked if a gay man should have the right serve, would say "yes". You might chance to learn more about America if were not for rush to twist everything that comes in front of you. Are you that scared of truth and fact, or do you see some advantage in your wild attempts to destroy them?
0
RomeoRamenII
This just goes to show that the democrats only pay lip service to gay issues.
Reid was all to happy to table a vote on the DREAM Act but he forces a vote on DADT he knows he can't win? He could have gotten Brown and Murkowski by agreeing to debate time, and amendments and he refused and got bumpkus.
If gays want to continue to hitch their wagon to the Democratic Party, they get what they deserve.
RR
0
SolidariTea
True. Obama is all talk. He had no qualms about forcing the porkulus through against Republican opposition. His party rammed health care through (though now it is being quietly repealed or only selectively applied - and by the Dems ) .
As I understand it a member of the US armed forces is at least 6 times more likely to be discharged for weight problems and 7 times more likely to be discharged for drugs than for disclosing their sexual orientation.
The whole issue is pretty minor, with unemployment at 16 percent. But it's the Democrat Party - all identity politics all the freakin time...
0
hottomales
Mass discrimination is NEVER minor, even if it affects only .5 percent of the population.
And if servicemen are discharged for weight problems and drugs, well THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE!
Well yes...only the GOP is twice as guilty! Why, if not for Republicans, America could have a third party. But its twice as hard to get Republicans to break ranks, because principles are more often second tier to them. Mind though, that is the lower ranks. At the upper ranks the parties argue different things, but are equally liars and misrepresenters.
0
FruitsBasketFan
TimRusset is doing it again by claiming that the Left is "rich" while the Right is not.
I think both are....but the Right is greedy when it comes to "big government" projects that are meant to help people (national healthcare and 9/11 victim compensations). You just do not want to admit it Tim because you have a bias for the GOP.
0
FruitsBasketFan
Edit: "Greedy" as in they do not want to lend money that is coming from the hands of government claiming it to be "communism" or "control" even if it is for something that will benefit everyone.
0
SolidariTea
America has more than 2 parties. Real Americans know this. The Libertarian Party has been in existence for decades. Nader was a force in 2000 - as Al Gore learned. It was not the Repubs who prevented the rise of Ross Perot. Sounds like hottomale needs to take a closer look at the Tea Party, instead of blindly criticizing it. Establishment Repubs don't like it and of course Democrats are scared witless by the rise of the Tea PArty movement, which should tell a lot to anyone hoping for a viable third party .
0
lostrune2
If they deal with the tax issue first and got time to re-introduce the DADT repeal bill before the Xmas break, then the Democrats may have their 60 votes (they already almost had it, with only 40 dissenters not likely to increase).
DADT repeal is just a matter of time anyways. The American population has turned and now the majority of public don't support DADT. Even the majority of US soldiers are now indifferent to its repeal, especially for each succeeding new generation of young recruits. The better compromise would be to agree that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" - but give the military time to prepare for adjustments (some branches need less preparations than others and could go first).
Back to top