dagblog - Comments for "". . . Ask . . . Tell" Justice Requires Repeal"

I don't think so. Someone

we are stardust — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:51:01 +0000

In reply to It's in the second half of

I don't think so. Someone has already suggested it as an alternative on John McCain's website. Maybe satire has to go another few degrees into the absurd. Just a thought.

Another thought: the In the news box isn't getting many comments, though I don't know about views. Maybe it could go south of the From the Dagbloggers even if it doesn't seem more useful.

And here I though it was

Donal — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:24:06 +0000

In reply to It's in the second half of

And here I though it was ironic. Damn song.

It's in the second half of

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:00:00 +0000

In reply to Apologies, then, but Dennie's

It's in the second half of the shower piece. And I'm sure that Dennie got the satire.

Yeah, I'm not sure if Dennie

Atheist — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:42:07 +0000

In reply to Apologies, then, but Dennie's

Yeah, I'm not sure if Dennie recognized it as satire. I suspect he did, but he treated it as least semi-seriously. Of course, as with all good satire (and I apologize profusely for calling it snark, Genghis), there's a Poe-ness to it that makes one question whether it's possible the person who wrote it might actually being serious, just as I'm sure there were at least some people creating delicious baby recipes after Swift's Modest Proposal.

Apologies, then, but Dennie's

we are stardust — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:37:04 +0000

In reply to Twas not snark. Twas satire.

Apologies, then, but Dennie's piece seemed to treat it differently, and your shower piece he linked to didn't mention any of it. Hence, my confusion. Was it Dennie's 'satire' then, or yours?

Twas not snark. Twas satire.

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:24:29 +0000

In reply to Now, if Michael Wolraich's

Twas not snark. Twas satire.

Now, if Michael Wolraich's

Atheist — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:43:04 +0000

In reply to "CNN’s Michael Wolraich,

Now, if Michael Wolraich's suggestion was snark, and I didn't get it, I apologize for being too serious.

Michael Wolraich (AKA Genghis) was most definitely being snarky. In the cited article, the snark is quite clear, although from how it was presented here, one could be excused for not recognizing it as such.

"CNN’s Michael Wolraich,

we are stardust — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:46:34 +0000

In reply to ". . . Ask . . . Tell" Justice Requires Repeal

"CNN’s Michael Wolraich, however, has come forth with a “new,” albeit tried, cost-effective solution: form separate—but equal—military units for gays and lesbians."

With all due respect, 'separate but equal', decided by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 that okayed segregation, was overturned by the Warren Court in 1954 in a unanimous decision, citing the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection to all citizens of the country, saying no state-sponsored institutions can be segregated. The decision came from Brown v. the Board of Education.

Further, the military has acted as a social change agent in the past, integrating blacks and women into its ranks, requiring soldiers to get along.

Now, if Michael Wolraich's suggestion was snark, and I didn't get it, I apologize for being too serious.

DADT is a sick law as it requires servicemen and women to lie, and it encourages spying, tattling, eavesdroppipng, and inquiry into personal records.

Just for the record, the day after Cindy McCain spoke against DADT, she walked it back. I'd guess her crazed husband made her an offer she couldn't refuse.

Pardon me for being blunt,

Beetlejuice — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:26:41 +0000

In reply to ". . . Ask . . . Tell" Justice Requires Repeal

Pardon me for being blunt, but what were you all thinking? Need I remind you of the health care debacle? Did you think this would fly under their radar? McConneell has stated nothing would pass that would give Obama anything to crow about in 2012. It should be obvious to the most casual observer the GOPer's are running the show even though they are the minority. Odd isn't it that the Democrats never exercised this much clout during their time being the minority?

Washington is broke alright and it's the GOPers who are doing everything possible to make it known and at the Democrats expense. So by the time 2012 arrives there will be enough people looking for change they can believe in and it won't be Obama or the Democrats. Sad fact the Democrats are too fearful to mount a counter strike...they might draw attention to themselves and earn the wrath of the tea-baggers and have a serious re-election challenge.

I would hope the Democrats grow a pair and a spine to boot cause if not, in 2012 the GOPer's will shove their God, religion and guns up all our ying-yangs without the courtesy of a thank you ma'am.

Senator Collins said it was

NCD — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 23:50:55 +0000

In reply to ". . . Ask . . . Tell" Justice Requires Repeal

Senator Collins said it was Reid who sabotaged the Bill (its always the liberals and the Democrats who sabotage things, never the GOP), Collins was asking for unlimited debate (with only one week left in the session) and said she was negotiating 'in good faith' (don't they always say that?).

Reid had met Collin's demand for unlimited debate on DADT twice earlier this year, and on those occasions she still voted against bringing the Bill to the floor, talk about Lucy and Charlie Brown....

Reid aide: "Sen. Reid earlier this year, in July and in September, did offer to have unlimited debate on the bill, and Sen. Collins could have supported moving forward at that time, and she didn't." SF Chronicle

I guess you can call it Blowing Smoke!