Frank: DADT repeal to be rolled into 2011 defense bill

Congressman, you will understand why I'm not holding my breath

It is very conventient that very soon after your gravy train is threatened, issues of fundamental gay rights becomes important.

Sorry, but the gAyTM remains closed to you and everyone else affiliated with the Democratic Party. Cash on DELIVERY, not on the promise of maybe someday doing something that might eventually lead to delivery.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:44:38 AM CST

But...

The Democrats have said all along that they had a strategy for dealing with these issues. The problem is that some pople keep demanding to know the strategy and the time table. Thus reducing the effectiveness of any strategy/timetable.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:10:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Baaaaaaa! n/t

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:22:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:38:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why on earth would I trust the secret plans of liars?

Right. And you should elect me president because I have a secret plan to end the war in VietnamIraq/Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Thanks, but I think I’ll refrain trusting the secret plans of people who lie to me. This is the same party, after all, that begged me for Senate campaign donations last year while claiming that sixty Senators are needed to stop a war.

---

by: pgraydon @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:32:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The GayTM isn't much of a threat to them.

  I was going to add this in the post below, Q of the day  But this seems to be a good place.

 It is our VOTE for these same promise tellers/breakers.  That is what they count on from the LGBT community.  We need to send them a message at the ballot box.  

 We need to find a close race in 2010 for a house seat.  Promise that the LGBT community will not support the Democratic Candidate.  Let him or her lose and let them know it was our vote that cost them.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:17:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who wins in that strategy?

Because, it seems to me that you're handing over seats to the Republicans.

How does that help you...especially if the Dems lose control of Congress?

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:49:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Holding "friends" accountable = letting The Enemy win? n/t

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:02:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A single house seat is irrelevant to everyone

but the people in the district (apologies for being our collateral damage, folks. But we've been roadkill many times, so we can empathize).

Dems will hold a substantial majority of the House regardless of really, anything. The GOP can't regain control of the House in 2010. Have you seen their fundraising numbers? No one's giving them money.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:04:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Americans suffer from an ignorance that is not only colossal, but sacred.  --James Baldwin

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:38:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This needs to be done at the primary stage

Start getting involved at the primary stage, and make sure LGBT friendly candidates are selected.

---

by: rfloh @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:38:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That was done in 2008, Obama won over Hillary.

  We took Obama's promises and look what we have now?  A real Fierce Advocate!?!?!

 

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:50:14 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We need to define "LGBT friendly" as PROVEN advocates

Anyone can whisper sweet nothings when they are seducing voters; we can no longer afford to just take a candidate at his word.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:03:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

excellent point

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:03:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree on that

I don't think the gay vote swung the POTUS Dem primary at all. If anything it was split between HRC and Obama, maybe a 60 HRC, 40 Obama.

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:05:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Since when was Obama the friendliest candidate in the Primary?

I don’t remember Dennis Kucinich telling me that ‘god is in the mix,’ for example.

---

by: pgraydon @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:38:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Since HRC defined "LGBT-friendly".

Since the HRC are "not a socialist organization", they don't want to be seen as supporting anyone but a mainstream corporate centrist -- and so Obama was their ideal candidate.

---

by: M @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:58:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No. It wasn't done.

By LGBT friendly candidates, I mean those who state in public, on the record, that they support FULL equality, without any caveats, without any equivocations, without any reservations, without any crossing of fingers, without any weasel words.

Obama was in no way the most LGBT friendly one. Compare what he said with what Kucinich said, or Richardson.

Furthermore, I don't just mean for presidential office. I mean at all levels of political office, wherever possible.

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 00:25:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Uh, about that little thing called "2010 Miderms"

1. Anyone who chooses to believe that even discussion of adding a repeal rider to the 2011 defense budget bill will not immediately be attacked by the Antigay Industry and their whores in Congress and become an issue in the 2010 midterms is free to bid on those prime sections of the Brooklyn Bridge I have left to sell. The 2010 authorization bill was only finally passed on Oct 23rd with POTUS signing on the 28th (Judy & Dennis Shepard... the James Byrd family....ring a bell?)....thus less than a week before this year's election so imagining that it can be hermetically insulated somehow from the midterms bloodbath is clicking their ruby slippers over their head.

Even this time, some Repugs who normally vote for every "defense" bill DID vote against the 2010 budget because of the hate crimes rider so expect even more to next year if the far hotter button (to them) of DADT repeal is attached...elections or not.

2. That is unless POTUS does what he PROMISED to do, what he was ELECTED to do, what both Harry Reid and Carl Levin have said he MUST do if repeal is to happen. What was that word again....rhymes with need....ah, now I remember: LEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Until then: the GAYTM is CLOSED!

And a Happy Veterans Day to all past and present LGBT servicemembers...and THANK YOU!

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 18:48:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're welcome

Beloved and I would like to thank those in the Blend and elsewhere who are actually fighting for her right to serve without fear, for my service to be honored, and our right as a military family to be recognized and protected.

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 19:57:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The question is the goal

If the goal is a repeal of DADT (and I assume it is), then it doesn't matter what authorization bill it's attached to.

As long as the goal is acheived, I couldn't care less if Representative X or Senator Y voted for or against the larger bill.  

I don't even care what Rep. X or Sen. Y thinks about DADT (or any other issue) in their heart of hearts - as long as they vote to make the policy change.  

The goal is the policy change.

---

by: HunterC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 08:50:32 AM CST

The most telling part there is that the HRC is declaring that it is irrelevant

All that access, super-duper fabulous dinner parties, and still the HRC "always" bows to congressional "allies".  Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?

# Duty, duty -- honor is, is --
Honor, Creideiki -- alertly
# Shared, is -- Honor #

---

by: MileHighDawg @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:05:42 AM CST

The rest of the HRC quote...

Asked about Frank's prediction for the repeal strategy, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said her organization "always takes its cues from its congressional allies."

"They're the ones that write the legislation and obviously [the defense authorization] would be a great bill to have repeal be a part of," she said. "That's where it should be."

David Stacy, HRC's senior public policy advocate, noted that Congress enacted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in 1993 as part of a defense authorization bill, so repealing the law via the same vehicle would mirror the process.

HRC is well aware of the sausage-making process for getting legislation through... and as the rest of the article tells it, they are busily working to see pro-GLBT provisions attached wherever and whenever they can be... just like the tax-equity on health care benefits that was included in the House-version of the Health Care bill.

It's quite obvious that there is a lot of animus towards the HRC on this blog, but it does get a bit tiresome.

---

by: txmichael @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:34:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

well maybe

if the HRC would stop appluading this administration every time they clink their champagne glasses together at another cocktail party and actually work to accomplish something, the animosity would calm down.

Perfect Case in Point.

Last spring Joe Solmonese told eveyone that the community would be getting something concrete from this administration for LGBT Pride month.

What we got was a Pride declaration and another White House cocktail party for Joe to go to.  And, at the same time we got this administrations DOJ defense of DOMA along with the LIE that they are required to defend DOMA.

Joe also constantly talked about the "super secret" strategy for the LGBT community early in this administration.  We are TIRED of SUPER SECRETS.

If Joe knows a strategy, then tell us what it is.  If it MUST be a "super secret" and we can't know what it is, then SHUT UP ABOUT IT.  I don't want Joe always using the "I know something you don't know and I can't tell you" form of communication.  You don't ANNOUNCE that secrets exist.  Especially "super secrets".  You don't announce someone has a strategy if you aren't willing to explain the strategy.

Even if there actually is a super secret strategy, I woudln't believe ANYTHING Joe Solomese says after all we got for pride month was a proclamation with the big build up he made about that.

---

by: timNC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:23:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Again, let the grassroots do what they do

and let HRC do what they do. There is no contradiction between the two, really.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:48:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

DADT

Get this repealed by whatever means works. Let's be practical.

Attaching it to the Defense Bill next year may be the only way to get it through the Senate without a filibuster.  

---

by: Pete @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:10:56 AM CST

I'd be a lot happier to wait for the needed code change...

... if real people weren't really being discharged in the interim.

---

by: pgraydon @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:47:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We should care... a bit

I agree that the policy has to go. I agree that if the only way to do it is to include it in the Defense Authorization Bill, then so be it.

But, in addition to the specific repeal of DADT, there is the meta-message, the spin, and all the other things that will be part of it.

Putting it in with the Defense budget clearly implies a feeling that it wouldn't get passed any other way, and is the sort of thing that gets added as a gotcha, knowing that the opponents will have to vote against something critical to stop it.

But this is a gay rights issue that a majority of voters are firmly behind. Those who aren't behind it are so not behind it that they probably see keeping faggots out of the military as actually more important than funding it, so there's no real gotcha there - anyone at risk of being painted as  "voted against funding the military" just has to (sadly, in this case validly) come out with the counter "put a social agenda ahead of paying our troops in wartime."  Where's the value in that, even if you do believe in this kind of game?

On the other hand, since this kind of game happens all the time anyway, nobody is going to pay a lot of attention.

Personally, I've always felt the fastest way to repeal DADT is to float a bill that specifically exempts any out GLBT person from the draft (not just from serving), and authorizes GI bill benefits to out gay citizens. DADT would evaporate in the ensuing "how DARE they demand special privileges!" firestorm.  

---

by: Lymis @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:24:58 AM CST

Yeah

But if you look at the polls, there's overwhelming support for most progressive policies. The problem is low voter turnout and corporate funding as well as gerrymandered districts has created a situation where congress is far more retrograde than the majority of Americans.

So things that should be slam dunks that are passed in a weekend turn into knuckle-down brawls. I mean Lilly Ledbetter Act was a close vote and I think most voters assumed "equal pay for equal work" was something we already had in this country. Hell the "contractors shouldn't be allowed to rape with impunity" Franken Amendment had 30 rethugs voting against in the Senate.

In short, our system is kinda fucked up and designed to privilege conservatism over the real beliefs of the American people and thus delay or block legislation that should in a sane world be passed quickly.

---

by: Cerberus @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:42:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not the system tha is screwed up

it's the lack of voter turn-out that causes the problems.  people aren't willing to get up off their asses and go vote.

---

by: timNC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:27:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WRONG, the system is Fucked Up!

  We are electing professional politicians. WHY, because that is the only choices on the ballots!

 When it doesn't cost an arm, leg, lung and a kidney to get on the ballot, then we might get some choices.

 For the last bunch of elections, I have been voting for what I believe would be the lesser of two evils.

 I say if voter turn out is less then 50% of registered voters, toss all candidates out and start with a new set.  Many people don't vote, not because they are lazy, they don't vote because none of the candidates deserve their vote.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 16:03:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

..

most people who don't vote, don't because they are not engaged and don't care.

How many people do you suppose voted last fall just because they wanted to vote for the first "black" president.  They never voted before and don't plan to ever vote again.  I think it gave many dems a false sense of security that there was some new permanant voting block that was going to continue to show up at the polls for dems in general and not just Obama specifically.

There is nothing wrong in theory with "professional" politicians.  If you have term limits where you automatically throw out pols every XXX years, you are also throwing out the pols that have the expertise in some very complicated issues.  And, if you do that, it's the lobbyists who get the ear of the newbie pols "helping them" to understand the issues and how to vote.

I do agree with you that we need election reforms.  Especially to get the lobbyists and special interests out of the process.

---

by: timNC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 17:56:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do you think people

"don't care" or are not engaged?

Have you considered that it is because they believe that the system is screwed up, that it is rigged?

How many people do you suppose voted last fall because they bought into Obama's "yes we can" and "change you can believe in" marketing?

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 00:41:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You could also make...

a positive assertion about the attachement as well. By tying it to a defense authroization bill it reminds people that it IS an issues of military rediness and national security. In fact, its logical that it would pass as a part of a defense bill.

The problem is that barney spilled the beans. Now the GOP and opponents will be expecting this.

---

by: SciFi Geek @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:08:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Unless Barney didn't spill the beans at all

and that's a real possibility.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:55:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter

In the words of Deng Xiaoping, "It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."

---

by: oddjob @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:52:41 AM CST

The issue is not the color of the cat

The issue is that we have been told, repeatedly and clearly, that getting a cat was completely unfeasable; but suddenly it does become feasable once we start threatening to store our grain in someone else's silo.

If Frank had issued this statement two weeks ago, before the boycott was building up steam, his words would carry some credibility. Right now, they do not.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:29:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay that's bullshit

Talk of action in 2010 was already going around weeks ago, only these specifics are news as of now.  The timeline pretty clearly predates the boycott.

---

by: onthesea @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:02:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I just find the timing of this announcement awfully convenient

Less than 24 hours after many bloggers announce a boycott of the National Democratic Committee because of the party's inaction on matters of LGBT concern, the ranking gay party member issues a statement that something will be done, eventually.

You will forgive me for being a tad suspicious.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:07:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Of course

I am sure the announcement itself was influenced by it, but I think the timeline had already been in place.

---

by: onthesea @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 12:26:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Aha! This explains a lot.

Asked about Frank's prediction for the repeal strategy, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, said her organization "always takes its cues from its congressional allies."

Nice of the HRC to finally admit who they're working for. ;)

---

by: Joe Decker @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:25:05 AM CST

kiss of death

The way things are going in the Obama administration, the majority status of the Democrats is going to be dramatically reduced in 2010 unless they don't wake up. Pushing off DADT until 2011 is as far as I'm concerned giving it the "kiss of death".

---

by: Herb @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:45:00 AM CST

Fiscal 2011 Authorization Bill

I take the statement to mean that DADT repeal would be rolled into the 2011 Defense Authorization bill which should come around the July-Oct 2010 timeframe.

The fiscal 2010 Defense Authorization bill is what just passed with hate crimes rolled into it.

Not that Congress isn't often late on such spending bills, but this would be while the current Congress is sitting (before Jan 2011).

---

by: HunterC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 10:52:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yes

Good point - I didn't think of that

---

by: Herb @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:34:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't fucking care what legislation it's attached to

Beloved and I are out of time. Just get it done. This should have been done already, months ago, and been a part of FY2010's Defense Authorization Bill.

"As president, I will work with Congress and place the weight of my administration behind enactment of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which will make nondiscrimination the official policy of the U.S. military...That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the Don't Ask/ Don't Tell policy. All that is required is leadership." - Presidential candidate Barack Obama, November 29, 2007

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 11:18:05 AM CST

Matt Shepard...

shouldn't have been attached to a defense bill.  I think it would've easily passed otherwise, but obviously these Democratic senators are SO afraid to appear too pro-gay rights or something.  Though really, most of them already have good to very good track records with voting on our issues, so I don't know what the problem is.

It sort of makes more sense to me to have DADT attached to a defense bill.  It's related.  But it still speaks to the same underlying problem.

---

by: Bruno @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 13:24:01 PM CST

Hate Crimes would NOT have passed as a stand alone...

Lets get real folks. There will be a protest here in DC on Monday as our opponents protest the passage of hate crimes. Don't expect them to fade away any time soon. Our opponents have begun an all out assault on ENDA in both the House and the Senate. What's our plan? While ENDA may very well make it thru the House (there will be a vote in the next few weeks)it could easily die yet again in the Senate. 16 years folks we have been working to get ENDA passed. Forget about Obama. You want to show some power as a gay community? Show how we can fight fire with fire!! Get on your lawmakers ass and don't let up. Put their office number on your speed dial and call EVERY SINGLE DAY until they are co-sponsors and ENDA is passed. We will NOT get ENDA passed by waiting on the Obama administration, or on our National Organizations. It is up you each and every one of us! Let's flex the muscle of 200,000+ equality marchers!

No way we are waiting until 2011 for repeal of DADT. That's not an option.  

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:24:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I stand corrected

The Blade is reporting, the House will NOT have a vote on ENDA before Thanksgiving and is kicking this back to February 2010. Seems the Conserva-Dems are getting some pressure from our opponents. Imagine that. Our opponents know how to pick up the phone and take our equality away while we do nothing. When will we learn.

What have you done for your equality today?

Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton

---

by: T2inDC @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:39:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

hmmm. I think how it's done

is sad, but I'm not going to gripe that our national elected leaders clearly are showing their cowardice to go on the record supporting us. That's not new and I don't want to seem ungrateful for not getting my result in the manner I'd prefer.

The timing of this announcement I find interesting. I think it coincides with Fire Dog Lake and women's groups deciding to join our ongoing boycott of the DNC and other Democratic groups.

I think they were seeing progressive groups lining up in opposition to the Dem coalition and are trying to avoid it snowballing. The future of the permanent Democratic Majority could be at risk if they started seeing serious fall out from the left.

So they looked around and said, what do we have in the pipeline that might make the left happy?

---

by: Clarknt67 @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:00:59 PM CST

This is fine, we'll have everyone on the record

The House will probably pass a standalone bill, the Senate will add it as an amendment, which will require a 60 vote majority. So we'll have every Congresscritter on the record. The reason they do standalones is because it takes 2-3 cloture votes in the Senate, and therefore several full days, whereas if you add it as an amendment that's one additional vote, and not a cloture vote at that. It really makes sense and the result is exactly the same.

---

by: brunonian @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:06:03 PM CST

sorry, why they DON'T do standalones n/t

---

by: brunonian @ Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 15:07:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I got your horse right here

his name is Parker Griffith D-AL-5).

He voted against Matthew Shepard 3 times. He pledged during the teabagger town halls not to vote for Pelosi for Speaker.

He won by a tiny margin in 2008. His district (my district, alas) is incredibly red and it's gerrymandered to be lily White. The only way AL-5 turns red is if the Angel of Death carries off every Jesus Goblin and  everybody over 65.

He's opposed by Les Phillip who's the minority outreach director of the Alabama GOP, so he'll be rich as Croesus in the 2010 general.

Griffith is wealthy enough and has a fat enough war chest, including contributions from the conservative PAC Ameripac, to withstand any primary challenge, especially since there's no clear primary challenger in sight.

It would be easier to let nature take its course and run against Phillip in 2012 than to primary Griffith.

Griffith is  a freebie. He's of no value to the Democratic Party in Congress. Les Phillip would be no worse than Griffith.

What we have is an opportunity to tell the DNC and DCCC "not one red cent from the GayTM if you give so much as a paperclip to parker Griffith."

The only downside is that we could look stupid and naive for trying to whack such a no-value Democrat.

Surely there are other targets who we can get a little leverage from opposing at minimum cost. Got some?

What a day, what a day for an auto-da-fe

---

by: revbob @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 02:09:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

stupak

women will join and chucking him out of office.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:04:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A verb should be defined as "STUPAKED"

I'm too tired right now
put on your thinking caps boys and girls.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 04:07:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

stupaked = when you throw all the lying SOB's stuff out of the House

Put it in his convertable sports car, soak it with gas, and toss a cig on it.

   http://blogs.bet.com/entertain...

see Waiting to Exhale

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 12:50:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cheer the news

Cheer it.
Take it.
But don't trust it.

Every servicemember who is fired under DADT is still a tragedy.

We still have enemies, particularly in the  in the Jesus Air Force,  who would like nothing better than to dishonor the last  servicemember under DADT. There is still room to drive drive a monster truck through personnel evaluations and fitness reports.

Keep the pressure on every Senator and Congressman, no matter how homophobic they are, and on the White House until it's the law. Let them know we're here.  

What a day, what a day for an auto-da-fe

---

by: revbob @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 01:29:29 AM CST

beat making software

This needs to be done at the primary stage

beat making software

beat maker software

---

by: latifah456 @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 08:40:31 AM CST

It Belongs in the Defense Bill, where else should it go?

This is a military issue.  Repeal of DADT belongs in the Defense Bill.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Mykelb @ Thu Nov 12, 2009 at 14:30:43 PM CST