Gay Patriot Header Image

Reid Says Vote on DADT repeal imminent

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 1:57 am - November 18, 2010.
Filed under: 111th Congress,DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

Let’s hope that this time Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reaching across the aisle to Republicans like Susan Collins who favor lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the military.  This repeal legislation wisely allows the military to craft a policy allowing for open service by gay men and lesbians:

The legislation would allow for the first time gay troops to acknowledge publicly their sexual orientation. However, the repeal of the current law would take effect after the president and his top military advisers certify that doing so would not hurt the military’s ability to fight.

The bill was considered a deal struck earlier this year between more liberal Democrats eager to change the law and the White House, under pressure by the Pentagon to give it more time to determine how to repeal the law without causing any backlash.

Therein lies the advantage of going through the legislature.  Instead of allowing a federal judge, with no military experience herself, to determine when and how the military should lift the ban, this bill gives the president’s military advisors the opportunity to ensure that lifting the ban will not compromise military effectiveness.  Military officials, not judicial ones, will make the final decision.

Fascinating how the New York Times begins its report on the article by seeing Reid’s move as a “direct challenge to Republicans who support the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell”’ policy barring gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces” as if this were all a game of one-upmanship with the GOP — and not a matter of national security.  Times “reporter” David Herzensohn doesn’t mention any Republicans who support the ban.

It does look like the Nevada Democrat is committed to repeal.  Let’s hope he doesn’t repeat the blunders the made the last time he tried to move the legislation.

Share

48 Comments

  1. It doesn’t take a psychic to figure out that the Democrats don’t really want to repeal DADT, but they want the Republicans to take the blame.

    I hope the Senate Republicans let just enough enough senators vote in favor of cloture to bring the DADT repeal to a vote. Then the Democrats can’t posture anymore.

    (I’m a liberal and I approved this message)

    Comment by myiq2xu — November 18, 2010 @ 6:09 am - November 18, 2010

  2. As the post presents it, this does seem to be the best of both worlds. Get the legislation out of the way if the military deems it’s time to kill DADT.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 18, 2010 @ 7:49 am - November 18, 2010

  3. Why must Congress dictate military personnel policies? Just let them handle it any way they want. Congress should write themselves out of dictating these matters including how they handle women in the military. Allow the military to seek the policies that best accomplishes the mission.

    Comment by anon23532 — November 18, 2010 @ 2:27 pm - November 18, 2010

  4. What is unique about the American system, is that the military is under civilian control control. The president, whoever it is, doesn’ just stand by while an army officer barks out orders to him. . A lot of people say that the military should make the decision, but who would be the final word? How about the comander in chief who could end it by executive order?

    It will be interesting how many Republicans will vote in favor of the repeal. I think a lot of the opposition to this type of congressional

    Comment by jkm — November 18, 2010 @ 2:57 pm - November 18, 2010

  5. jkm, thanks to Bill Clinton who pushed through DADT in 1993, the Commander-in-Chief can’t rescind the ban by executive order. It would be nice if he could — as he should.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 18, 2010 @ 4:25 pm - November 18, 2010

  6. DADT was an improvement over the status quo at the time. No longer are prospective recruits asked if they are homosexual. I remember being asked that when I joined and before I came out. The President could stop enforcement immediately.

    Comment by jkm — November 18, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - November 18, 2010

  7. I don’t think any Democrat has any reason to make a true effort to put an end to DADT, not when they have so much to gain by keeping it in place. If the mere promise of its removal is enough to get votes, then Democrats will continue to promise to get rid of it, but once it is actually gone, they lose the ability to keep making that promise, and will need to find new issue to get support from the gay community over. It would be much simpler for them to just keep the same old set of issues.

    Comment by Khepri — November 18, 2010 @ 8:44 pm - November 18, 2010

  8. Khepri, it seems as though you are getting a little scared that the Dems might be successful where the Log Cabin Republicans were not. It is not going to be Republicans who are going to be willing to die on this hill. And for the life of me I can’t see why not. The public opinion on this issue is clear. There is nothing for Republicans to lose by coming out in favor of repealing DADT. In fact, considering how many Republicans have not served themselves and how many gays have served bravely, it could even be said to be the Partiotic thing to do.

    Comment by jkm — November 18, 2010 @ 9:08 pm - November 18, 2010

  9. Jkm, my attitude has nothing to do with fear of the Democrats getting anything done, rather I fear that they will continue to jerk us along, making promises that they have no intention of keeping. I was convinced that they were going to finally get rid of DADT, to the point where I was ready to celebrate the repeal, but it never happened. It was a hard battle, but the Democrats managed to sabotage their own efforts, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Comment by Khepri — November 18, 2010 @ 10:00 pm - November 18, 2010

  10. agreed

    Comment by jomama — November 18, 2010 @ 10:24 pm - November 18, 2010

  11. What happened to ignoring gay issues, B. Daniel? Oh, that’s right. Gay issues, and all social issues, should be ignored only by people who look at them from a socially conservative perspective.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 19, 2010 @ 7:37 am - November 19, 2010

  12. Lieberman confident over votes to repeal DADT. Democrat votes, that is.

    http://lezgetreal.com/2010/11/lieberman-confident-over-votes-to-repeal-dadt/

    Comment by jomamma — November 19, 2010 @ 12:09 pm - November 19, 2010

  13. #12 Ugh. Bridgette’s one of those “Republicans kill gays!” jack wagons.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 19, 2010 @ 1:23 pm - November 19, 2010

  14. #11: And still this loon, crouched in her closet with her walkie-talkie, her super-duper secret decoder ring and her tinfoil hat.

    We’re going to INFILTRATE…Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaa!

    She’s GayPatriot’s version of Colonel Flagg, from M*A*S*H.

    Sorry, guys…can’t take her seriously anymore. Life is too damn short to waste on suffering fools gladly.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 19, 2010 @ 1:41 pm - November 19, 2010

  15. Lori, you’re really funny. You can’t give an intelligent response to my concerns or questions. You can’t deny the hypocrisy I–and others–have the audacity to point out, so you resort to mockery. I’m shocked you didn’t call me a closet gay, your usual way of trying to invalidate everything I say. But do keep up your antics; you’re just showing the world YOU are the loon you accuse me of being.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 19, 2010 @ 11:08 pm - November 19, 2010

  16. Seane-Anna, I have given several intelligent responses to your questions — you simply haven’t liked them. You disagree, therefore they are not “intelligent.”

    Yes, I do think you’re a closeted homosexual. You may have some other deeply personal reason for your obsession with homosexuality — especially for the raging bee in your bonnet about gay conservatives — but you refuse to say what it is. Before you splutter again about how you “don’t have to do that,” no one is claiming that you do. But you obviously have some sort of a personal issue with gays, and yes — we do have every right to ask what it is.

    You have been confronted, and have had the opportunity to respond. If you had any integrity, you would not be afraid to do that. This could be because you have some other deep-seated problem with gays, but the most likely possibility…sorry…is that you are, indeed, a closeted homosexual. When people behave the way you do, it is generally the reason why, and when they refuse to give another, that is going to be many people’s conclusion.

    I don’t really care one way or the other. The straights can have you. But whenever somebody craps on me, I will stand up and demand to know why.

    When you show up on a website and verbally abuse people, accuse them of all sorts of evil (“infiltration,” indeed!) and just generally crap all over them, don’t be surprised if at least a few of them challenge your narcissistic sense of entitlement and take you to task for it.

    And what you call my “antics” are what most normal people would call humor. Yes, H-U-M-O-R. You may not be familiar with the concept. I suppose you’ll come back with “that wasn’t funny,” but humor seems such an unfamiliar concept to you that I’m not even sure you know what it is.

    You accuse us of being evil and dream up all sorts of terrible motives for everything we do. I make fun of you. And you are so full of yourself that you see no moral distinction between those two things.

    You are pathetic. Maybe someday you’ll prove whatever it is you’re so feverishly compelled to prove to yourself. Nobody else cares.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 20, 2010 @ 12:15 am - November 20, 2010

  17. You can’t deny the hypocrisy I–and others–have the audacity to point out invented, and now froth and foam at the mouth at, as others shake their heads in amazement at our foolishness

    FIFY, SA.

    you’re just showing the world YOU are the loon

    SA, you seem to need a reality check. Lori isn’t making herself look bad. You are making yourself look bad. You are the loon here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 20, 2010 @ 10:15 am - November 20, 2010

  18. I invented hypocrisy, ILC? Hmmmm, when B. Daniel says Republicans should stay away from social issues yet he himself doesn’t but, rather, keeps pushing the socially liberal position on things like DADT and gay marriage how, exactly, is that NOT hypocrisy with a capital “H”?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 20, 2010 @ 6:21 pm - November 20, 2010

  19. Lori, someone must have bitch slapped you one too many times when you were a kid judging from your over-the-top reaction to me. I’ve clearly pushed some buttons you don’t like being pushed. Let me start with the most ludicrous thing you said in your last response to me.

    You accuse me of accusing people here of being evil. Brain check, sweetie! I’ve accused people here of not being true conservatives, at least not on social issues, and I stand by that. But how in the hell does accusing people of not being true conservatives equate to accusing them of being evil?

    I’ve accused people here of being social liberals infiltrating the conservative movement in order to turn it against traditional values, and I stand by that. I’ve accused people here of having disdain for traditional values and the people who hold them, something NOT consistent with conservatism as I’ve known it. And I stand by that, too. But, again, how do either of those accusations equate to accusing people of being evil?

    Lori, I’ve NEVER accused anyone here of being evil! Drop your hypersensitive victim persona before you read my comments so you can see what’s really on the screen. Challenging gay hypocrisy–yes, Lori, it DOES exist–doesn’t make me obsessed with gays, any more than challenging liberal hypocrisy makes me obsessed with liberals. That accusation is just one of your ways of trying to smear the messenger since you can’t refute the message. Gee, that sounds just like something a liberal would do. CLOSET LIBERAL!!!! Gotcha, Lori.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 20, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - November 20, 2010

  20. “CLOSET LIBERAL!!!! Gotcha, Lori.”

    What are you, Seane-Anna, five years old? “Nanny-nanny boo-boo, poopyhead! Your mother wears Army boots?”

    There are actually two very different strains of conservatism present and active in America today: social conservatives and libertarians. I make no attempt to speak for social conservatives, because I have never even claimed to be one. They are merely, in my opinion, a different variant of the progressive liberals, and just as dangerous to the survival of the country.

    I am not a “CLOSET LIBERAL!!!” — in hysterical, screaming capital letters — but a very out-and-proud libertarian. I come to this site because I find it very interesting and well-written, and I like exchanging ideas with many of the people here. Ooooh…big sinister agenda! You’ve really exposed me now!

    You, on the other hand, are a conundrum wrapped inside a mystery. You claim to be heterosexual, yet you are, indeed, undeniably obsessed with gays. You dishonestly pretend not to know the difference between social conservatives and libertarians, mixing them up willy-nilly in your rhetoric. I say dishonestly, because I don’t think you’re really stupid enough not to know the difference. You know damn well the game you’re playing.

    I have asked you why you feel such a powerful motivation to come here and repeatedly attack people — and yes, accusing them of “infiltrating” (a word commonly used for communists during the Cold War) is indeed attacking and besmirching them. If I were interested in “hiding” anything about myself or my own motives, that would be an extremely counterproductive thing for me to do.

    You simply refuse to answer the question. WHY do you feel such a burning need to besmirch gay conservatives? The fact that you do it was already obvious enough; you shed no new light on the subject by continually repeating that you’re here, supposedly, to do it.

    You obviously lack the honesty — or the sense of honor or integrity — to answer the question. And no, nobody here can “make” you do it. If you had any honor or integrity, you’d want to. You claim to be a Christian, but there certainly isn’t anything Christian about the disrespect you show to people here. You look at the fact that some of us have stood up to you as if it were the originator of the conflict, when in fact it has been a response to your initiation of it.

    You are Colonel Flagg to a “T.” We’re infiltrating! Your tinfoil hat is on too tight, and I will go back to ridiculing you. Until and unless you begin to act like an adult and either answer my question (or at least consider it in your own mind) — or until you begin to show the people who blog and comment here the respect they deserve. There’s nothing in the Bible about any duty, on your part, to make an ass of yourself because you think other people are “sinning.”

    Your decision to act like an ass is one you must bear all alone.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 20, 2010 @ 9:02 pm - November 20, 2010

  21. Lori, good job in flushing out Seane-Anna for everyone to see. But I don’t think she will ever get it. The only defense for her position is based on some misinterpretation on text from 2000 years ago that was also misattributed to God. No wonder she can’t answer your questions. And it’s hard to see if either she or Col. Flagg would win the biggest idiot award. Thankfully, dinosaurs like her are becoming extinct faster than I thought possible.

    As for DADT vote, something tells me that this isn’t going to happen. And even if it does, Obama will probably just veto it. So far, Obama has done everything to thwart ending DADT. He vociferously opposes any court ruling that would end DADT. If this is because he wants Congress to do this, then he needs to step up as a leader and clearly articulate that. But Obama has failed miserably as a leader, so no surprise there.

    Dan, good post, but I take issue with one point. Yes, Clinton did sign the current DADT legislation, and I wasn’t thrilled that he backtracked on a promise. But it was an improvement over the previous policy. Further, this has been 17 years. We’ve been through several Congresses and have seen failed leadership with the current president and his predecessor on this issue. I can’t blame Clinton on that.

    Comment by Pat — November 21, 2010 @ 8:10 am - November 21, 2010

  22. Lori and Pat, you both gave evidence of exactly the accusation I’ve made here on this blog. Lori, you called social conservatives “dangerous to the country” and Pat, you called me a dinosaur that’s becoming extinct. Both of those remarks reveal a seething hatred for social conservatives and our beliefs. How, then, am I supposed to believe that “conservatives” like you aren’t trying to eradicate social conservatives like me from the conservative movement?

    Pat and Lori, “conservatives” like you are trying to turn conservatism into a vehicle for social liberalism and thereby deprive social conservatives of a voice in the culture. Sure, you may sincerely believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t or can’t be socially on the Left. The call by B. Daniel and others for Republicans to be silent on social issues is nothing but a strategy to give social liberals the upper hand in the culture war. If that’s not the case, girls, then please explain why B. Daniel and his friends aren’t demanding that Democrats also be silent on social issues. We all know the answer to that: it’s because Democrats promote the social Left’s position on social issues, the position that B. Daniel, his friends, and the two of you want to prevail.

    I started reading this blog because I wanted to see what “gay conservatives” were all about. I agree with some of what I read here but when I disagree I don’t feel I have to hold my tongue just because the authors, and most of the readers, of this blog are gay. I don’t believe being gay gives anyone a pass on anything. But apparently, Lori and Pat, you do. And maybe that’s the real source of your anger, the fact that I don’t shower gays with the sycophantic praise you seem to think is their due. Sorry to disappoint you girls, but that’s the down side to the equality you claim to want. “Equal” means you aren’t cut any slack just ’cause you’re queer. Get used to it.

    And Lori, I called you a closet liberal to mock your ridiculing me as a closet gay, as if that invalidated everything I’ve written. And while we’re on the subject, I find it revealing that you think the worst smear you can use against me is to call me gay. Very, very revealing.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 21, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - November 21, 2010

  23. Pat, you’re right, our resident Colonel Flagg will probably never get it. What I’m doing in my interchanges with her has more to do, however, with respect for you and the others who blog and comment here than it does with her. It doesn’t matter very much, I suppose, whether she ever gets a clue or not.

    I really asked her a very simple question — and I believe all bullies should be asked the same question. Why is she here? She’s very obviously and deeply emotionally exercised by the very presence of gay conservatives and gay Christians — anybody who does not fit the kindergarten-simple stereotype in her mind. Why does she need the stereotype so much?

    If a bully can be made to answer that question, it might begin to make him or her think — and get them to grow up a little. That benefits not only the bully, but everyone the bully has gone after. You’re right that she may not get it; she may simply be too small. That’s not our loss, but her own.

    She tried to “explain” herself by telling us what she is doing — which tells us nothing new, because we can already see what she’s doing. Then she tried blaming her bizarre accusations and behavior on something Dan posted two or three days ago — which of course does nothing to explain why she was hanging around here, harassing people for months and months prior to that.

    She either won’t explain because she’s ashamed of the reason, or can’t because she’s compelled by something even she doesn’t understand. And so we get the nonsensical charge that I am a “closet liberal.” I’ve known quite a number of closeted conservative gays, but being a liberal gay is so easy — and so popular — that of course none of us would need to be closeted, in the gay community, about our liberalism.

    Go figure. People are a puzzle.

    This is a great forum for us to share our insights. And I’ve had some skirmishes with other commenters here. I get ideas, here, for topics I want to write about — which is another reason why I come here. The whole dustup with Colonel Flagg is going to make a terrifically entertaining essay.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 21, 2010 @ 4:30 pm - November 21, 2010

  24. Oh, looky! While I was posting in response to Pat, here comes another flaming turd from Seane-Anna!

    Again, SA, you are giving superficial reasons for your actions that do not really explain anything. You may start reading a blog to find out what an unfamiliar group of people are about — much as Margaret Mead might have studied a particular culture somewhere in the world. But Ms. Mead didn’t decide to kick them around and insult the hell out of them if she didn’t like them or approve of their “lifestyle.” Nor did she tell them they were liars who wanted to defraud others.

    As for the cute little trick about me thinking calling you gay was some sort of a smear, nice try. Please keep playing. What I did was suggest a possibility I knew you would deny, in the hope of drawing you into making a real, honest explanation. Sorry, but your secret decoder ring has failed you.

    What is “very, very revealing” is that you are, indeed, every bit as paranoid as Colonel Flagg. Everybody out there has a sinister motive. The whole world is one big spy movie to you.

    I do not for a moment believe you when you repeat (because you do realize you have said as much before) that you came to this blog just to see what everybody here was about, but then hissed and spat and clawed the hell out of people — evidently — because Truth, Justice, Apple Pie and the American Way just demanded it. I call bullcrap on stilts, because that’s what that is.

    The only two choices Americans have are not social conservatism or social liberalism — both of which are big-government, tax-and-spend, heavy-handed philosophies. Again, very tellingly, you ignore libertarianism — which is evidently too big a threat to your cozy little worldview for you even to admit into existence. The difference between social conservatism and libertarianism is not one of piety or morality, but of philosophy about the proper role of government in individuals’ lives.

    You are either ignorant (which I doubt) or extremely dishonest. But when you peddle bullcrap, I’m going to call you on it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 21, 2010 @ 4:42 pm - November 21, 2010

  25. Lori, you just can’t seem to find enough words to smear me. I’ve gone from being a closet gay to being–gasp!–a bully! Ohmigod!!!!!!!! But thanks for revealing the narrow world your mind inhabits.

    Let everyone see that, in Loriland, anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the socially liberal position on gays is a “bully”. Anyone who dares to call out gay hypocrisy is “harassing” people. And anyone who dares to point out the inconsistency of claiming to be conservative while promoting social liberalism is “attacking and besmirching” people.

    Tell me, Lori. Is American Elephant, who saw the same hypocrisy in B. Daniel’s article as I did, a bully because of it? Was he harassing people when he called out that hypocrisy? Was he attacking and besmirching people when he pointed out the inconsistency in B. Daniel’s and GOProud’s position? If not, why am I all those things in your–and I use the word loosely–mind?

    Lori, somewhere along the way you swallowed the idea that straights must speak only sweet flatteries to gays or else they’re bullies afflicted with mind-numbing stereotypes. That’s just one more reason for me to think you’re a social liberal. Libertarians, as I understand them, have no problem with “the oppressed” being called out on their flaws and shortcomings. Liberals are the ones who have a problem with that, hence, I apply the label to you. And I think it fits.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 21, 2010 @ 5:14 pm - November 21, 2010

  26. “But when you peddle bullcrap, I’m going to call you on it.” Back atcha, chickie.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 21, 2010 @ 5:21 pm - November 21, 2010

  27. Seane-Anna, you can apply any label to me you like, because I don’t care. I’ve gotten a good enough bead on your worldview to know you either aren’t as smart as I thought you were — and are simply incapable of grasping a rational argument — or you are too dishonest to face facts when they’re staring you in the face.

    I do not have a socially-liberal position on gays, and neither do most of the other people who comment on this site. You know better than that, so at this point you are simply blowing smoke. What I have — again — is a libertarian position on government’s role in citizens’ lives. You may indeed not be smart enough to understand that after all.

    As for your conflict with Dan, I’m simply staying out of it. If you want an explanation of what he said, you need to ask him. I didn’t say it, so I have no need to be sucked into a squabble that never concerned me in the first place. I suspect you are misinterpreting what he said, the same way you misinterpret so much of what other people say.

    And as for American Elephant, he and I have had our own disagreements, but they really don’t concern you and they are not relevant here. At one time I accused him of not being a real conservative, but now that I see how silly it sounds to hear someone else say such a thing, I rescind that. He is merely a different sort of conserative — a social conservative, rather than a libertarian one.

    He and I will find plenty to disagree with, even acknowledging that. But to the degree that he disagrees with anyone, at least he takes it up with that particular individual instead of smearing it all over the board and getting it all over everybody the way you do. Your mind seems to be so befuddled that you can’t even keep straight which quarrel you have with whom.

    The more I listen to you, the more I wonder whether you might not really be a closeted — or at least a latent — homosexual after all. Instead of just a ruse to try to draw you out of your hidey-hole, it might be true. You certainly act like someone who’s thrashing through your own private little hell as you try to come to terms with whatever it is you’re so bothered about.

    If that is the case, it is your own, jaundiced mind that sees that as an attempt to smear you. I do not regard being homosexual as a “smear.” I regard it as simply a fact of life. If you had any sense, you might see that people like me — by getting you to really stop and think about why you’re so obsessed — may actually end up being of help to you.

    As for the “right back atcha, chickie,” again — how old are you? Sometimes you act like you’re still in preschool, and then you vault a few years forward and carry on like you’re in junior high. Maybe someday you’ll actually grow up and join the adult world. In the meantime, you’d do yourself a big favor if you realized that I am having a wonderful time baiting you. This is tremendous fun.

    I call you Colonel Flagg, and you rage and storm and stomp your little foot about it. Didn’t you mother ever tell you not to let everything people say make you crazy?

    You have a very nasty temperament, and you can be quite vile to the people who comment here. You have insulted Dan, as well as many other people on this board. I respond by poking fun at you. Most others simply avoid you. When somebody registers the slightest degree of agreement, you slobber all over him like a grateful little whipped puppy.

    Too bad, so sad…

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 21, 2010 @ 6:05 pm - November 21, 2010

  28. “I do not have a socially-liberal position on gays.” Really, Lori? So you’re against legalized gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and so on? Gee, who knew.

    “What I have — again — is a libertarian position on government’s role in citizens’ lives.” Again, really, Lori? So that means you believe government shouldn’t tell people who they can marry or just sleep with, right? So I’m sure you’re working overtime to legalize polygamy, prostitution, incest, and drugs. And you’re also working to get rid of those pesky age of consent laws, I just know it. After all, it’s the libertarian view that government shouldn’t regulate people’s private lives, right? Oh, and I’m sure you’re totally in support of parents, NOT schools, deciding when, what, and whether to teach children about homosexuality and, therefore, you’re also in favor of removing GLSEN from the schools. I just know you are.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 21, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - November 21, 2010

  29. “I just know you are.”

    As I have expressed no opinion about most of those things, Colonel Flagg, you know nearly nothing about what I think of them. All you know is what the voices in your head tell you.

    You come to this blog and say insane things about the people who comment here, then you expect a line-by-line response to every wacky charge you make. You aren’t going to get one. I refuse to dignify your stupidity by taking it seriously.

    One thing more. If you really want to know how actual social liberal gays would treat you if you went to one of their blogs and uttered this sort of keyboard diarrhea to them, just try it. After they’ve told you to go screw yourself, wished every form of violent death on you imaginable and banned you from their site, come back and cry about it to us.

    You need mental help. Seriously.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 22, 2010 @ 12:58 am - November 22, 2010

  30. Lori,

    I had to lol at the Colonel Flagg comment. My mind went to the Stand and i was trying to figure out what The Walking Dude and Seane-Anna had in common. That made me laugh.

    Then I caught the MASH reference and laughed more.

    What Seane-Anna fails to see is that she and you agree to a point, then she crosses a line you won’t with your beliefs, (nor will I with mine).

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 22, 2010 @ 6:41 am - November 22, 2010

  31. I’ve crossed a line with my beliefs? Oh, do tell me when and where, The_Livewire, please!

    And Lori dear, what I’ve heard and read about what libertarians believe is that government should stay pretty much out of everything. And since you insist on calling yourself a social libertarian rather than a social liberal, I drew the logical conclusion that you believe that, too. It’s interesting that you didn’t deny the point I made but, true to form, just launched more ad hominem attacks on me. You can’t refute the message so you trash the messenger. A typical LIBERAL tactic. Lori dear, with antics like that and your devotion to your hypersensitive victim persona, I don’t think the libertarians would have you.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 22, 2010 @ 7:20 am - November 22, 2010

  32. I invented hypocrisy, ILC? Hmmmm, when B. Daniel says Republicans should stay away from social issues yet he himself doesn’t but, rather, keeps pushing the socially liberal position on things like DADT and gay marriage how, exactly, is that NOT hypocrisy with a capital “H”?

    The recent discussion was about a GOProud letter to *Congressional leaders* which stated affirmatively that fiscal / Tea Party issues should be at the top of the *legislative agenda*.

    The question, properly phrased, is: how on Earth could that be hypocrisy? Dan never said that social conservatives should abandon their convictions. Dan never said that social conservatives should stop expressing their convictions. Dan has made clear that he disagrees with some of those convictions while agreeing with others, while favoring the fiscal / Tea Party issues most of all, at this time. Finally, as evidently the following escaped your notice altogether: Dan is not a legislator; he doesn’t decide legislative agendas. And Dan is not a representative GOProud – it’s more Bruce.

    So yes, Seane-Ana: You, and certain other fools of your ilk, have **INVENTED** a non-existent “hypocrisy” here. It is an impressive demonstration of your poor cognitive skills, as well as your ongoing need to be angry, need to feel like a brave embattled minority (when in fact you are only annoying and silly), etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 10:50 am - November 22, 2010

  33. One other thing: You / your ilk have invented a story about Dan supposedly running and hiding from your brrrrrrrrrave accusations on him. Here is the truth. I know the following, because I spoke with him about it only 36 hours ago. Dan has a life. Dan’s participation in the comments is inevitably sporadic (as is mine and others’); it’s called “being busy”. Dan doesn’t read every comment, not even comments that he rescues from the spamfilter; he sees the “top 5″ as they scroll across that section, and sometimes gets engaged, sometimes not. So Dan’s time and interest are finite. If you need attention from him, you will do better sending him email (and being nice). Insofar as Dan is aware of you at all – which right now, is somewhat less than you think – Dan may be slightly torn about what to do with you. Insofar as Dan is aware of you at all, he knows that your invented allegations of hypocrisy are just stupid. But Dan also wants to be nice to people and (as much as possible or within reason) let the blog be a place where people can express their opinions. In other words, Dan is a GENEROUS GUY. So (along with Bruce) he blithely provides a platform where you crap on him. Again, Seane-Anna: Keep it up, it only shows the world what a nut you are.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 11:04 am - November 22, 2010

  34. You come to this blog and say insane things about the people who comment here [ed: and the main bloggers], then you expect a line-by-line response to every wacky charge you make. You aren’t going to get one.

    Bingo.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 11:28 am - November 22, 2010

  35. @Seane-Anna if you knew anything about gays you would know that we are no different than anyone else, and having to hide that part of our lives is not only unfair, unequal, and anti-liberty. It can cause severe psychological problems over time. Forcing young men and women to endure that for the voluntary sacrifice of time and possibly their lives in our defense is not only a civil issue but a moral one. Young gays do not know how bad living in the closet, young gays may not even be fully aware that they are gay, or even join the military thinking that it could ‘cure’ them. I cannot in good conscience add to the suffering they will endure in the military by possibly destroying their lives with DADT. Further more the policy doesn’t work, cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars, re-enforces negative stereotypes, undermines security, and wastes personal. So if you want to continue to argue for a clearly unjust policy I suggest you spend time with people that have come out of the closet and learn more about what it’s like to live that way.

    Comment by Tim — November 22, 2010 @ 11:30 am - November 22, 2010

  36. Livewire and ILC, all Colonel Flagg has accomplished has been to reaffirm the very reason I am a libertarian in the first place. The social right is heavily populated with vile, emotionally-infantile lunatics like her. Never, NEVER again must we allow this country to be entrusted to these people.

    It is in its current dire condition because of the combined efforts of progressive leftists AND right-wing socialist nuts like Seane-Anna. We must fight with all the power, I truly believe, BOTH to drive out the Obamabots AND to make sure the likes of SA never regain power again.

    As long as the sheeple simply dash, in dumb fright, back and forth from one of those groups to another, America will continue on its present route down the toilet.

    In her usual earnest half-wittedness (the half of her brains that remain in her head are obviously scrambled), all Seane-Anna has done has been to give a pretty good demonstration of why the hell the libertarian answer is the ONLY answer.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 22, 2010 @ 11:50 am - November 22, 2010

  37. Seane-Anna, a couple of things first. Pat is short for Patrick, so I’m not a girl or a woman. I’m an adult male. Also, you don’t need to use the silly scare quotes on me. I am not a conservative, social or otherwise. I’m more of a moderate on fiscal issues, and more of a libertarian on social issues. I just don’t think there are things that government should get involved with regarding adult relationships. This also means that freedom of religion also applies. In other words, If you as a “Christian” (how do you like the scare quotes?) feel that homosexuality is naughty and evil, fine, believe that. It is certainly your right to not engage in homosexual activity whether you are a lesbian or not. But we would be better off if your religion’s tentacles stayed out of consenting adults’ bedrooms.

    Now since I am gay, you espouse that I should be in favor of every type of sexuality. I’m not sure why. There are two different things going on here. There are certain things that should remain illegal, because they don’t involve consenting adults and cause actual harm to those involved. This includes pedophilia and bestiality. There are other behaviors that I also personally don’t approve of. They include promiscuity, and polyamory. But when those involve consenting adults, I don’t see how it’s government’s business to legislate such behavior. You believe otherwise regarding homosexuality, and so far, you haven’t given any reason why this issue should be decided except for blindly accepting antiquated rules. To demonstrate what I mean, I think it would be a bad idea to allow you to marry, have children, and to instill the perverse views that you have, yet I do not advocate imposing such government restriction on you.

    As for you being a dinosaur, let’s put it this way. I think it’s similar to the 1950s when traditional values included segregation and inequality for Black persons. There was still a significant minority who still believed such tripe. And those who still maintain those beliefs are objects of ridicule. I think this is what people like you will be in the next 25 or so years. We’ll see. It might take longer.

    As for the point relating to Dan’s post, my party (or more accurately, the party I’m more closely affiliated to) got trounced this past election, and deservedly so. But if you or others think that it was because of social conservative issues, I got news for you, the Republicans are going to be trounced again in the next 2-4 years.

    Since I am not a conservative, I obviously have different views than most on this blog, including the blogmasters. I think the key is to express those views, but not in a way that’s equivalent to coming into someone’s home and sh&tting on their carpet. That’s what you have been doing.

    Comment by Pat — November 22, 2010 @ 5:02 pm - November 22, 2010

  38. I obviously have different views than most on this blog, including the blogmasters. I think the key is to express those views, but not in a way that’s equivalent to coming into someone’s home and sh&tting on their carpet.

    Pat, well said. I’ve ‘publicly’ disagreed with Dan and/or Bruce on many issues. I only try to never let it be personal, with them. (With others, I will let it be personal if they have gone out of their way to make it personal, first.) It’s a space Bruce and Dan provide. It’s nice that they provide us the space, and it’s nice that they let us express our disagreements with them and even more with each other. But they’re the hosts, and crapping on the host’s face just isn’t something I do, or expect to get away with. I’m saying it in hopes that a few others might take it to heart.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 22, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - November 22, 2010

  39. Now Pat, in SA’s defense, I made the same mistake. (You can blame that SNL skit for it, I think).

    Thats’ about all I can defend her on with these recent posts. I *could* blame it on the chemo, but that would be wrong. (aside, I’d point out when she let us know she had cancer, all she got was outpouring of sympathy, no ‘die bitch die’ like we’d hear from our more, hostile leftist posters.)

    Lori, if I can have my Granny Goodness, I guess you can have your Colonel Flagg. And yes, ‘The price of liberty is eternal vigalance’ not paranoia. :-)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 23, 2010 @ 8:16 am - November 23, 2010

  40. Livewire, Granny Goodness is a great addition to our cast of characters. With Granny and the Colonel, we can build on as necessary. I know Dopey shows up once in a while (I thought of calling him Doctor Dooms, but that sounds too momentously important), and we really do need Doc and Sneezy.

    Maybe someday we’ll have enough to stage a musical.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 23, 2010 @ 11:37 am - November 23, 2010

  41. Incidentally, you’re right about how leftist posters would deal with an antagonist who had cancer. That’s basically what I said when I warned SA of the sort of reception she would get on site run by actual gay leftists.

    She came here, got ahold of decent people and spewed her crap all over them. No one here would have wished her anything but a full recovery — and I’m sure that’s still the case. But it doesn’t give her a lifetime pass to wipe her shoes on people forever after.

    Actually, come to think of it, she thinks an awful lot like a liberal.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 23, 2010 @ 12:01 pm - November 23, 2010

  42. The_Livewire, you can blame chemo on anything you want. I won’t mind. “Chemo brain” really does exist.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 23, 2010 @ 6:35 pm - November 23, 2010

  43. Livewire, I wasn’t faulting Seane-Anna for that. But I did want to clear the record there. As for the Pat skit on SNL, I loved it. I used to be able to do a good imitation of Pat myself.

    Seane-Anna, my best wishes for a quick and full recovery on your cancer.

    Comment by Pat — November 23, 2010 @ 6:58 pm - November 23, 2010

  44. Ditto to what Pat said. Cancer sucks ass; I wouldn’t ever wish it on any political opponent.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2010 @ 7:25 pm - November 23, 2010

  45. Ditto to Pat and ILC. Whatever SA might imagine, we are not monsters here. If she’s going to come to this site and post comments, she might just as well treat us like human beings.

    It is sort of a tacit admission, on her part, that we are NOT monsters because she bothers to come here at all. She probably knows perfectly well that actual gay liberals would howl and scream at her and wish death upon her.

    Neil Cavuto was remarking, today on FOX, that in a crisis the world still runs to America — no matter how much it may shriek against this country when skies are fair. Pretty much the same principle is at work with SA. She knows we’re a different breed than the leftists she accuses us of being — which is why she bothers to wipe her shoes on us instead of them. It’s very French.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 23, 2010 @ 8:15 pm - November 23, 2010

  46. This made me think of something rather alarming. Does this mean that when the EU collapses, we’ll have all of socialist Europe at our doorstep, crying for us to save them?

    We did it in two world wars. It wouldn’t surprise me.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 23, 2010 @ 8:17 pm - November 23, 2010

  47. Pat and ILC, thank you for your kind words.

    Lori, I do not think that anyone here is a monster and I’m truly befuddled that you think I do. Yes, I criticized some people here and I stand by that criticism. But criticizing people, even gay people, is NOT the same thing as believing they’re monsters. It’s also not the same thing as crapping all over them or wiping my feet on them, as you so colorfully described it. Lori, do you always have such visceral and hypersensitive reactions to criticism of gays? Anyway, I’m done with trying to figure you out. Thanks for echoing Pat’s and ILC’s kind words; now go deal with your issues.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — November 24, 2010 @ 5:37 pm - November 24, 2010

  48. “Thanks for echoing Pat’s and ILC’s kind words; now go deal with your issues.”

    And as Scripture says, Seane-Anna, “go and do likewise.”

    Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 24, 2010 @ 6:28 pm - November 24, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.