View Full Version : Things blocked and/or shelved because of Republican Senators in the last 24 hours...
David87
12/09/10, 11:09 PM
The DREAM Act, Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Health Care for 9/11 Responders/Ground Zero Workers.........Seriously. This is the same political party that says they don't want the government impeding on civil rights and glorifies themselves as Patriots.
So let's prevent gays from serving their country, block an act designed to force illegals to contribute to the system, and tell our hero's from 9/11 to go fuck themselves. This is my not surprised face.
Of course I'm sure the heartless folks out there who believe money is everything will respond with a whole bunch of BS about why you can't do this and you can't do that because you have to cut spending and only cut spending without raising taxes at all because that will work so well (without providing any examples of when or why this has ever worked here or around the globe)....and the best part being that spending/the economy only has to do with one of these issues, which is the health care for 9/11 Respondents. I guess what's yours is yours and you earned it so to hell with throwing a little money in the direction of the people who dealt with shit no one here could fathom in the weeks following September 11th.
Not that that matters, because the less fortunate folks are only that way because they chose to be and didn't work hard enough, and everyone who has money totally and completely earned it themselves through nothing but hard work and are obviously the best, most honest part of American society. Right?!
Scrandon
12/09/10, 11:13 PM
Oh, you. This is not David's Rant Forum.
David87
12/09/10, 11:16 PM
It is not. You are free to post your thoughts. Then it can be David and Scrandon's rant forum.
it feels really good to rant sometimes. we should make a thread specifically for that.
Juan Jose
12/09/10, 11:59 PM
why not start a revolt? it'd probably get your message across much better than whining on the internet
esposimi
12/10/10, 04:37 AM
Not letting gays and lesbians serve in the military is a disgrace to this country. Why should we remove them of the honor of serving our country?
Jake Gyllenhaal
12/10/10, 05:23 AM
Not letting gays and lesbians serve in the military is a disgrace to this country. Why should we remove them of the honor of serving our country?
Because many conservatives believe that the military will have to completely overhaul how they treat and house troops. They'll have to make separate living corridors and separate showers. Troops will lose trust in those alongside them if they are gay. Oh, and that gay soldiers will spend eternal damnation in hell. This is what I keep hearing from conservatives.
serenab1221
12/10/10, 05:58 AM
Because many conservatives believe that the military will have to completely overhaul how they treat and house troops. They'll have to make separate living corridors and separate showers. Troops will lose trust in those alongside them if they are gay. Oh, and that gay soldiers will spend eternal damnation in hell. This is what I keep hearing from conservatives.
The fact that a lot of people keep mentioning that disturbs me. I mean, the gays are not a separate gender or class of their own, and they're not sexual predators either. There is no reason this should even come up in debate. Didn't we get over the idea of segregation already?
serenab1221
12/10/10, 06:01 AM
Not letting gays and lesbians serve in the military is a disgrace to this country. Why should we remove them of the honor of serving our country?
You're telling me. This pretty much killed my future plans (i.e. graduate from college, get commissioned as an officer). Shit, I was supposed to go to West Point, but I backed out because I couldn't hide from myself like they wanted me to. I mean, it's hard enough already putting everything on the line like everybody else, but to ask even more of me by not letting me be myself? It didn't seem too hard at first, but once I got my acceptance letter it hit me just how hard it would be. So I literally gave up my dream because of this shit.
themagicrat
12/10/10, 06:42 AM
I'm sure that there wasn't even one ounce of asinine bullshit attached to any of those bills. A bill is hardly ever just on one issue. There's always something ridiculous tacked on to the back end of it that never really makes much noise because it isn't the largest issue at hand. That being said I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dated and ridiculous and should be done away with as soon as possible.
honkyg88
12/10/10, 07:59 AM
I'm sure that there wasn't even one ounce of asinine bullshit attached to any of those bills. A bill is hardly ever just on one issue. There's always something ridiculous tacked on to the back end of it that never really makes much noise because it isn't the largest issue at hand. That being said I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dated and ridiculous and should be done away with as soon as possible.
This, I'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong, but there's so much that goes into a bill.
caveBEAR
12/10/10, 08:12 AM
Because many conservatives believe that the military will have to completely overhaul how they treat and house troops. They'll have to make separate living corridors and separate showers. Troops will lose trust in those alongside them if they are gay. Oh, and that gay soldiers will spend eternal damnation in hell. This is what I keep hearing from conservatives.
Hmm...now, you know I'm 100% against DADT, homophobia, etc., but that point brings me to another question. Why do we separate male and female living quarters/restrooms? Is it really just that our parts aren't identical?
Simulcast
12/10/10, 08:18 AM
Hmm...now, you know I'm 100% against DADT, homophobia, etc., but that point brings me to another question. Why do we separate male and female living quarters/restrooms? Is it really just that our parts aren't identical?
Probably not.
caveBEAR
12/10/10, 08:22 AM
Probably not.
Well, if so, the new living quarters/restroom argument may not be that off-base. (I still think it's ridiculous) If part of the logic behind keeping ladies and men separate is the 'sexual' aspect of it, then someone saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals shouldn't be showering together isn't out of their fucking mind...they're just, well...I don't know what they are. Scared, I guess.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 08:23 AM
Well, if so, the new living quarters/restroom argument may not be that off-base. (I still think it's ridiculous) If part of the logic behind keeping ladies and men separate is the 'sexual' aspect of it, then someone saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals shouldn't be showering together isn't out of their fucking mind...they're just, well...I don't know what they are. Scared, I guess.
Seems counter-intuitive to have homosexuals showering together as well. Sort of defeats the purpose of separation.
girthman
12/10/10, 08:25 AM
This is the same political party that says they don't want the government impeding on civil rights and glorifies themselves as Patriots.
very well put
caveBEAR
12/10/10, 08:32 AM
Seems counter-intuitive to have homosexuals showering together as well. Sort of defeats the purpose of separation.
:lol:
Very true. Ha ha ha, I'm not saying I agree with the logic at all, and I know that homosexuals aren't going to start raping everyone like a bad prison movie the moment they hit the showers, but the 'alternative living/showering conditions' is the first anti-DADT stance that has made a glimmer of sense to me, only because I'm unaware of the reasonings (legal or otherwise) that we've always separated living/bathing quarters between genders. (Not saying homosexuals are a separate gender, before anyone takes it that way.)
:shrug:
caveBEAR
12/10/10, 08:36 AM
This is the same political party that says they don't want the government impeding on civil rights and glorifies themselves as Patriots.
Actually, it's really not. Listen to how they end their 'we don't want the government impeding on...' sentences. The always say 'me' or 'us' or 'The Real American People' (and we know who the Real American People are; people who got all their civil rights in 1776.) or something about those lines. They don't give a flying fuck about civil rights, and they've never pretended they do. They're selfish pricks who don't want the government to interfere in their affairs, but they not only don't care about the government interfering in the civil rights of others, they glorify it.
i.e., they're mother-fuckers.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 08:50 AM
:lol:
Very true. Ha ha ha, I'm not saying I agree with the logic at all, and I know that homosexuals aren't going to start raping everyone like a bad prison movie the moment they hit the showers, but the 'alternative living/showering conditions' is the first anti-DADT stance that has made a glimmer of sense to me, only because I'm unaware of the reasonings (legal or otherwise) that we've always separated living/bathing quarters between genders. (Not saying homosexuals are a separate gender, before anyone takes it that way.)
:shrug:
This is going to sound bad, but the solution is to just shut the fuck up about it when it is inappropriate. Someone in a unit is gay? Fine, there should be nothing wrong with that fact being known. It doesn't bother me that my coworker is an uninformed liberal moron; I'm aware of that and we are really good friends, and it doesn't impede our ability to get work done. However, just as it's inappropriate and counterproductive to hit on a woman in the office or speak lewdly around them, so should it be for a man to hit on another man or to engage in unwarranted lewd discussions. You shouldn't be in the army to socialize and meet potential mates (I am aware that this happens, but not during training or other similar situations), you are there to serve your country and obey orders. The army should punish gay men for engaging in this type of behavior just the same as they would a man for treating a woman in a similar way. My (I believe to be rational) fear is that once DADT is repealed, lawyers will enter the equation and fuck everything up, once people start playing the discrimination card.
Mibabalou
12/10/10, 08:53 AM
Not letting gays and lesbians serve in the military is a disgrace to this country. Why should we remove them of the honor of serving our country?
Cause they'd spread it around and then our great nation would turn into weak men
sarcasm -
Debut_Fin
12/10/10, 09:17 AM
"It's so hard being a heterosexual, white, Christian male"
- Every Republican
Simulcast
12/10/10, 09:22 AM
"It's so hard being a heterosexual, white, Christian male"
- Every Republican
Ahem.
Debut_Fin
12/10/10, 09:26 AM
Ahem.
Stop.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 09:26 AM
Stop.
Stop what? Calling you out on a ridiculous stereotype?
Debut_Fin
12/10/10, 09:29 AM
Stop what? Calling you out on a ridiculous stereotype?
More ridiculous than your comment that a gay man would only want to join the military so he could potentially meet someone and that if DADT were repealed all the gays would rise up and start hitting on anybody and everybody even though research shows that even if it were repealed gay soldiers would still try pretty hard to just fit in and not draw attention to themselves?
Simulcast
12/10/10, 09:31 AM
More ridiculous than your comment that a gay man would only want to join the military so he could potentially meet someone and that if DADT were repealed all the gays would rise up and start hitting on anybody and everybody? Even though research shows that even if it were repealed gay soldiers would still try pretty hard to just fit in and not draw attention to themselves?
Show me where I made this claim. Show me where I said EVERY gay man would only join to meet someone and start hitting on everyone.
You simpleton.
Debut_Fin
12/10/10, 09:35 AM
This is going to sound bad, but the solution is to just shut the fuck up about it when it is inappropriate. Someone in a unit is gay? Fine, there should be nothing wrong with that fact being known. It doesn't bother me that my coworker is an uninformed liberal moron; I'm aware of that and we are really good friends, and it doesn't impede our ability to get work done. However, just as it's inappropriate and counterproductive to hit on a woman in the office or speak lewdly around them, so should it be for a man to hit on another man or to engage in unwarranted lewd discussions. You shouldn't be in the army to socialize and meet potential mates (I am aware that this happens, but not during training or other similar situations), you are there to serve your country and obey orders. The army should punish gay men for engaging in this type of behavior just the same as they would a man for treating a woman in a similar way. My (I believe to be rational) fear is that once DADT is repealed, lawyers will enter the equation and fuck everything up, once people start playing the discrimination card.
I'm aware that you didn't say "every", but you cannot pass legislation based on what some people might do.
Also, I'm pretty sure that rape and sexual harassment are completely separate issues from discrimination.
Repealing DADT wouldn't stop the government from punishing any potential cases of a man harassing another man. We have courts and juries and all that good stuff.
Also, I hate when people say "discrimination card", "race card", or any of that stuff. You're discounting the fact that real discrimination does occur.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 09:48 AM
I'm aware that you didn't say "every", but you cannot pass legislation based on what some people might do.
Also, I'm pretty sure that rape and sexual harassment are completely separate issues from discrimination.
Repealing DADT wouldn't stop the government from punishing any potential cases of a man harassing another man. We have courts and juries and all that good stuff.
Also, I hate when people say "discrimination card", "race card", or any of that stuff. You're discounting the fact that real discrimination does occur.
Thank you for providing a decent response.
Let me break down my views on the issue. DADT in all reality will probably be repealed. I know this, and it doesn't get me up in arms. My contention is the possibility that the military will lose its focus on creating the world's most superior fighting force because it has to deal with social issues that should not even enter into the equation. Now before you call me a bigot and a racist conservative 1950's loving male, let me say that I believe it shouldn't matter what race, religion, or orientation you are in regards to serving this country. If you want to protect America, that's all I need to hear in order to know you're my comrade. I realize however, that in order to create a superb military fighting force, a certain degree of discipline has to be maintained. My fear is that in the hopes of ending discrimination, this degree if discipline will fall by the wayside; An over-correction of sorts will happen.
That's it and that's all.
Jason Tate
12/10/10, 09:55 AM
Thank you for providing a decent response.
Let me break down my views on the issue. DADT in all reality will probably be repealed. I know this, and it doesn't get me up in arms. My contention is the possibility that the military will lose its focus on creating the world's most superior fighting force because it has to deal with social issues that should not even enter into the equation. Now before you call me a bigot and a racist conservative 1950's loving male, let me say that I believe it shouldn't matter what race, religion, or orientation you are in regards to serving this country. If you want to protect America, that's all I need to hear in order to know you're my comrade. I realize however, that in order to create a superb military fighting force, a certain degree of discipline has to be maintained. My fear is that in the hopes of ending discrimination, this degree if discipline will fall by the wayside; An over-correction of sorts will happen.
That's it and that's all.
Just because you say "I'm not a bigot" doesn't mean your views don't espouse them. Because, uh, "possibility that the military will lose its focus on creating the world's most superior fighting force because it has to deal with social issues that should not even enter into the equation" ... seriously? Anti-integration argument? REALLY?
Scrandon
12/10/10, 09:58 AM
We didn't see any problems with racial or gender integration. I see no difference.
Jason Tate
12/10/10, 09:59 AM
I'm sure that there wasn't even one ounce of asinine bullshit attached to any of those bills. A bill is hardly ever just on one issue. There's always something ridiculous tacked on to the back end of it that never really makes much noise because it isn't the largest issue at hand. That being said I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dated and ridiculous and should be done away with as soon as possible.
This, I'm not saying that anyone is right or wrong, but there's so much that goes into a bill.
Go read them ... much better to do that instead of just assuming.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 09:59 AM
Just because you say "I'm not a bigot" doesn't mean your views don't espouse them. Because, uh, "possibility that the military will lose its focus on creating the world's most superior fighting force because it has to deal with social issues that should not even enter into the equation" ... seriously? Anti-integration argument? REALLY?
No, that's not what I meant. By not entering into the equation I mean that it shouldn't matter if a person is non-white or homosexual, the focus is on maintaining a disciplined fighting force and training skilled warriors. Race or orientation has nothing to do with that.
No, that's not what I meant. By not entering into the equation I mean that it shouldn't matter if a person is non-white or homosexual, the focus is on maintaining a disciplined fighting force and training skilled warriors. Race or orientation has nothing to do with that.
It does if any of the skilled warriors has a race or orientation, which they likely do...
Simulcast
12/10/10, 10:06 AM
It does if any of the skilled warriors has a race or orientation, which they likely do...
It doesn't preclude them from becoming a skilled warrior.
It doesn't preclude them from becoming a skilled warrior.
Exactly. But it also doesn't negate their orientation or race for the sake of building up the "whole". You're asking for complete ignorance of human makeup for the sake of creating a superior fighting force.
Also, I'll add that the "world's most superior fighting force" has less and less to do with soldiers...
Jason Tate
12/10/10, 10:11 AM
But race and orientation and sex will always have some role - no matter what; we're not color-blind. The army is not some androgynous force.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 10:11 AM
Exactly. But it also doesn't negate their orientation or race for the sake of building up the "whole". You're asking for complete ignorance of human makeup for the sake of creating a superior fighting force.
What does it have to do with aiming down the sights, scanning your sector, or reading a map? I'm not asking for ignorance, I'm saying that in battle it doesn't matter.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 10:12 AM
Also, I'll add that the "world's most superior fighting force" has less and less to do with soldiers...
Not with asymmetric warfare.
What does it have to do with aiming down the sights, scanning your sector, or reading a map? I'm not asking for ignorance, I'm saying that in battle it doesn't matter.
If people were robots, you'd be correct. But they're not, and you're not. Pretending like "battle" has no human element flies in the face of the huge numbers of PTSD and suicides in the military.
Not with asymmetric warfare.
Sure it is. The biggest threats of the future will not have anything to do with guns or boots.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 10:19 AM
If people were robots, you'd be correct. But they're not, and you're not. Pretending like "battle" has no human element flies in the face of the huge numbers of PTSD and suicides in the military.
I'm not pretending there is no human element. I'm saying in that when you are in the shit, nothing else matters but your training and the men next to you.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 10:20 AM
Sure it is. The biggest threats of the future will not have anything to do with guns or boots.
You are ignoring 3,000 years of military history.
Jason Tate
12/10/10, 10:20 AM
I'm not pretending there is no human element. I'm saying in that when you are in the shit, nothing else matters but your training and the men next to you.
... which seems to logically imply what all the military brass are saying: repeat this stupid "law" - and let's be done with it.
You are ignoring 3,000 years of military history.
Which look to have fulminated in changing the way nations engage in warfare from swords, to guns, and now to computers.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 10:33 AM
Which look to have fulminated in changing the way nations engage in warfare from swords, to guns, and now to computers.
With the common element of well-trained soldiers. Until Skynet comes along, someone has to "pull the trigger".
Big_Guy
12/10/10, 01:14 PM
hopefully all these old farts die off and we can replace them with forward thinking individuals
honkyg88
12/10/10, 01:30 PM
Go read them ... much better to do that instead of just assuming.
Yeah, I should have explained myself. I should have simply said that the 'Don't ask, don't tell' issue was a part of a larger defense spending bill and not imply that things attached to bills are "asinine bullshit".
The Indigo
12/10/10, 01:35 PM
So, gays have no discipline?
x togepi x
12/10/10, 01:45 PM
Thank you for providing a decent response.
Let me break down my views on the issue. DADT in all reality will probably be repealed. I know this, and it doesn't get me up in arms. My contention is the possibility that the military will lose its focus on creating the world's most superior fighting force because it has to deal with social issues that should not even enter into the equation. Now before you call me a bigot and a racist conservative 1950's loving male, let me say that I believe it shouldn't matter what race, religion, or orientation you are in regards to serving this country. If you want to protect America, that's all I need to hear in order to know you're my comrade. I realize however, that in order to create a superb military fighting force, a certain degree of discipline has to be maintained. My fear is that in the hopes of ending discrimination, this degree if discipline will fall by the wayside; An over-correction of sorts will happen.
That's it and that's all.
Israel and most European armies have dealt with those issues and are doing fine. I mean seriously, are you going to say the Isreali army isn't a well trained disciplined fighting force?
Simulcast
12/10/10, 01:54 PM
Israel and most European armies have dealt with those issues and are doing fine. I mean seriously, are you going to say the Isreali army isn't a well trained disciplined fighting force?
They murder Palestinian babies. Guess we shouldn't repeal DADT. ;-)
The Indigo
12/10/10, 02:06 PM
They murder Palestinian babies. Guess we shouldn't repeal DADT. ;-)
Our army murders children too, bro.
Simulcast
12/10/10, 02:18 PM
Our army murders children too, bro.
It was a joke, Broseidon king of the Brocean.
majinsharingan
12/10/10, 02:34 PM
With the common element of well-trained soldiers. Until Skynet comes along, someone has to "pull the trigger".
You don't need well-trained soldiers to be the most powerful. Hell, we'd be stronger/more threatening with no soldiers because we have one option and one option only - Nuke the fuck out of them. Yeah, obviously no soldiers and nuking the fuck out of whoever is a bad idea, just saying that soldiers are not the defining factor of a powerful army anymore. When all is said and done we could have no soldiers and Sudan could have 20 million but who is in control? The people with the nukes or the people without them?
ChaplainTappman
12/10/10, 03:19 PM
You don't need well-trained soldiers to be the most powerful. Hell, we'd be stronger/more threatening with no soldiers because we have one option and one option only - Nuke the fuck out of them. Yeah, obviously no soldiers and nuking the fuck out of whoever is a bad idea, just saying that soldiers are not the defining factor of a powerful army anymore. When all is said and done we could have no soldiers and Sudan could have 20 million but who is in control? The people with the nukes or the people without them?
His point is that a human is still necessary to press the big red button and "nuke the fuck out of them".
majinsharingan
12/10/10, 03:24 PM
His point is that a human is still necessary to press the big red button and "nuke the fuck out of them".
Not a trained soldier though, which seemed to be his point.
saysmydoctor
12/10/10, 03:28 PM
Alexander the Great was gay. He was obviously a highly unsuccessful military leader.
x togepi x
12/10/10, 04:04 PM
They murder Palestinian babies. Guess we shouldn't repeal DADT. ;-)
FUCK. i don't know what to think anymore
Simulcast
12/10/10, 04:09 PM
Hahahaha.
crackedthesky
12/10/10, 05:35 PM
My fear is that in the hopes of ending discrimination, this degree if discipline will fall by the wayside; An over-correction of sorts will happen.
That's it and that's all.
I feel like I've had enough interaction with you to know that you're not a racist or a bigot, and I think you're genuine in your concern.
However, you're marrying homosexuality with lack of discipline, here. Not really in your beliefs, but it seems more like you're afraid that will happen.
That said, my response to you is this:
That same concern was expressed in the history of the US military twice before: when blacks were allowed to serve, and when women were allowed to serve.
Neither time did discipline fall by the wayside of equality. Basically... I think it's an unfounded fear. We don't have any reason to believe that's likely to happen.
As far as house and senate Republicans go, I think the mistake made by many when it comes to DADT is that, for some reason, they assume that letting gays serve might have some psychological effect on soldiers.
...as if war itself doesn't have some psychological effect on soldiers. You're telling me the United States, the current world superpower, can train men to be okay with shooting a woman or a child for the sake of keeping their men and their country safe, but we can't train them to... stand within a few feet of a gay person? I don't buy it. I think the people fighting DADT have a disturbing lack of faith in our military's capabilities.
anamericangod
12/10/10, 09:37 PM
The Democrats have been so fucking weak since Obama took office that none of this should be a real surprise.
The Democrats should be hammering them on the 9/11 responders bill. That's the exact kind of issue Republicans would have no trouble exploiting if the shoe was on the other foot. It highlights their inability to hone a message and drive home their narrative.
saysmydoctor
12/10/10, 10:09 PM
I feel like I've had enough interaction with you to know that you're not a racist or a bigot, and I think you're genuine in your concern.
However, you're marrying homosexuality with lack of discipline, here. Not really in your beliefs, but it seems more like you're afraid that will happen.
That said, my response to you is this:
That same concern was expressed in the history of the US military twice before: when blacks were allowed to serve, and when women were allowed to serve.
Neither time did discipline fall by the wayside of equality. Basically... I think it's an unfounded fear. We don't have any reason to believe that's likely to happen.
As far as house and senate Republicans go, I think the mistake made by many when it comes to DADT is that, for some reason, they assume that letting gays serve might have some psychological effect on soldiers.
...as if war itself doesn't have some psychological effect on soldiers. You're telling me the United States, the current world superpower, can train men to be okay with shooting a woman or a child for the sake of keeping their men and their country safe, but we can't train them to... stand within a few feet of a gay person? I don't buy it. I think the people fighting DADT have a disturbing lack of faith in our military's capabilities.
:appl:
I don't understand how people can be this ignorant to history sometimes. Racial integration in the military was widely opposed too. Whereas, here, DADT's repeal polls with a majority in favor. Repeal is good politics for anyone but no one seems to realize it. Then again, these are the same people putting secret holds on tons of administration appointees for shits and giggles really. They are just gaming the fucking process.
The Democrats should be hammering them on the 9/11 responders bill. It's the exact kind of issue Republicans would have success exploiting if the shoe was on the other foot.
Republican doublethink is a learned skill.
David87
12/13/10, 01:14 AM
Cleared out my internet cache and forgot to come back here. Look what I started haha.
Yeah, I should have explained myself. I should have simply said that the 'Don't ask, don't tell' issue was a part of a larger defense spending bill and not imply that things attached to bills are "asinine bullshit".
It WAS a part of a larger bill...then it was separated and voted on and still shot down. Ridiculous.
I have read, in entirety, the current incarnation of The DREAM Act, and in the 11 sections there is no BS thrown in. It's pretty short and to the point as far as bills go.
Posthardcore
12/28/10, 01:40 AM
Glad they stopped the DREAM Act.
Jake Gyllenhaal
12/28/10, 06:16 AM
Glad they stopped the DREAM Act.
I'm not.
caveBEAR
12/28/10, 06:46 AM
Glad they stopped the DREAM Act.
Why?
David87
01/11/11, 01:59 AM
Because it would have given full and total amnesty to all those damn illegals!:biggun:
The DREAM Act is the best immigration idea in years, and ironically it started out as a Republican idea years ago. It's a fucking travesty that they can't get this shit done. Why in the hell would anyone ever be against 1. Educating and employing, and therefore expanding the economy and the tax base, kids that have been here for years and speak English and "home" to them is America, and 2. Increasing the amount of soldiers in our military.
Hopefully they can work on this over the next 2 years.
ReadyForAction
01/11/11, 09:51 AM
The Democrats have been so fucking weak since Obama took office that none of this should be a real surprise.
Agreed. It's getting hard to watch at this point
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.