The Democrats held a 60 seat majority for a year.Any member of the Senate, whether of the majority or minority party, may place a "Hold" on a bill. Overcoming this hold requires the same 60 vote majority as cloture on a filibuster.
The Republicans did not use the hold on the legislation you cite because a hold is redundant when already using the filibuster.
Afraid of catching The Gay?Sorry, I do not want any gays around me. Especially not the way we had to live in Afghanistan.
Even a Marine general can fall on his sword as a good soldier would.He is not a soldier, he is a Marine. I would appreciate if you did not make that mistake again.
I was unaware that explaining a Senate rule in response to a direct question was "making excuses".The Democrats held a 60 seat majority for a year.
What's your excuse now?
Just for the record, from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009, the Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate; the Republicans held 40, and there were 2 Independents who chose to caucus with the Democrats. One of the Independents actively campaigned for the Republican Party in the 2008 general election.The Democrats held a 60 seat majority for a year.
What's your excuse now?
Sorry, I do not want any gays around me. Especially not the way we had to live in Afghanistan.
He is not a soldier, he is a Marine. I would appreciate if you did not make that mistake again.
Just for the record, from July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009, the Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate; the Republicans held 40, and there were 2 Independents who chose to caucus with the Democrats. One of the Independents actively campaigned for the Republican Party in the 2008 general election.
Prior to July 7 and after August 25, the Democrats numbered 57 Senators due to the delay in Senator Franken's seating and Senator Kennedy's death.
Even counting both Independents as Democrats, the Democrats held 60 seats in the Senate for approximately seven weeks, not one year.
So why not have the 57 people vote in favor of it and force the Republicans to go on record against it? Oh, thats right.. because a lot of the Democrats are bigots.
Is it really your opinion that the Democrats need to waste more time on empty partisan gestures intended solely to embarrass Republicans?So why not have the 57 people vote in favor of it and force the Republicans to go on record against it? Oh, thats right.. because a lot of the Democrats are bigots.
Like the republicans?
\good to see you admit republicans are bigots....
Honestly, I'm not sure. Some Republicans claim to be, but then they tap their foot in the airport bathroom. Democrats CLAIM to support gay rights but show their true bigoted colors when they refuse to address gay rights when they had the ability to do so. Our President apparently has no interest in advancing gay rights, otherwise he would have done so. He's worse that what you try to portray the Republicans as. At least the Republicans are honest about their bigotry.. Obama apparently thinks the only minorities who need protecting are blacks.. Unless they are gay I guess?
Interesting point, however - how many republican leaders have attempted to end the bigotry?
I think part of the problem is the 'tolerant' left would crucify any Republican who came out as gay. If we assume that the Republican party follows normal standards for gay people, we can assume there are at least a few dozen gay Republicans. What is the upside of them coming out/championing the gay cause? The liberal media would destroy their political careers.
I think part of the problem is the 'tolerant' left would crucify any Republican who came out as gay. If we assume that the Republican party follows normal standards for gay people, we can assume there are at least a few dozen gay Republicans. What is the upside of them coming out/championing the gay cause? The liberal media would destroy their political careers.
Sorry, I do not want any gays around me. Especially not the way we had to live in Afghanistan.
He is not a soldier, he is a Marine. I would appreciate if you did not make that mistake again.
Please do not try to confuse FNE with your silly "facts" and "logic". We all know he is above such things.Not at all. Groups like GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans are tolerated quite well in the gay community specifically and the "left" in general.
Many gay people don't identify with or vote exclusively for either party (myself included).
You don't see them; that doesn't mean they're not there.In combat arms? I don't think you have to worry about that. Navy sure it's probably half now, Air Force sure. Support personal sure. But I just don't see to many gay Rangers.
Sorry, I do not want any gays around me. Especially not the way we had to live in Afghanistan.
Bullshit. If Obama came out and told congress that he wants this repealed IMMEDIATELY it would be. Lets also not forget that the Democrats hold a damn near fillibuster proof majority in both houses. They can get this done NOW if they wanted to. The fact is the DEMOCRATS and Obama himself have little interest in pushing this through.
The Congress tried to push a vote of the repeal of DADT but the Senate vote count was
Dems 57-2
Repubs 0-41
Obviously it was the fault of the Democrats repeal didn't pass.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-repeal-ban-gays-military/story?id=11685658
The Democrats held a 60 seat majority for a year.
What's your excuse now?
The Congress tried to push a vote of the repeal of DADT but the Senate vote count was
Dems 57-2
Repubs 0-41
Obviously it was the fault of the Democrats repeal didn't pass.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-repeal-ban-gays-military/story?id=11685658
That was not a vote on DADT.. it was a Defense Bill that included a provision to repeal DADT. I want a straight up or down vote on this one issue. I bet many of the Democrats that voted FOR this bill would not have done so had they thought it would pass.
Any member of the Senate, whether of the majority or minority party, may place a "Hold" on a bill. Overcoming this hold requires the same 60 vote majority as cloture on a filibuster.
The Republicans did not use the hold on the legislation you cite because a hold is redundant when already using the filibuster.
If the Republican party can vote down a defense bill just because it has a repeal of DADT attached to it they're no friend of mine.