It's been a long time since MSNBC could pretend to be anything but a shill for liberal politicians, policies and causes. Any remaining doubts about that can be dispelled by surveying the network's recent coverage of the controversy over gays in the military.
Cable news' self-described "place for politics" covered the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" administrative policy six different times between July 27 and July 29. Opponents of the current policy were able to state their case unchallenged, while network anchors made it clear that they were themselves in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the armed forces. Not one defender of the current policy appeared in any of the conversations about "don't ask, don't tell."
Conversations about the policy, which bans openly gay men and women from serving in the military, were keyed around the actions of Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Penn., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress, kicked-off a seven city tour sponsored by the gay rights' activist group Human Rights Campaign to increase public support for his bill that seeks to allow homosexuals to serve in the armed forces. Gillibrand announced that the Senate Armed Services committee agreed to hold a hearing on the policy in the fall, the first since 1993, when former President Bill Clinton instituted the policy as a compromise.
Reality Where None Exists
Commonly thought to be a law that allowed gays and lesbians to serve in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" was never voted on by Congress. It was an administrative policy formulated after the passage of Section 654, Title 10, which declared gays and lesbians ineligible to serve in the Unites States military. The policy itself directly contradicts the intent of the law and was not fully explained during any of MSNBC's coverage.
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness told the Culture and Media Institute that MSNBC engaged in "perception management" with its recent "don't ask, don't tell" coverage. That is, the network is "creating reality where no reality exists."
Anchors repeatedly hyped a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll that found 69 percent of American adults favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Donny Deutsch, guest host of "MSNBC Live" on July 28, even implied that proponents of the policy were brainless. "Is there any argument from anybody with a brain that says we shouldn't be repealing this at this point?"
Yes, there are plenty of arguments from people "with a brain" in favor of the ban. MSNBC audiences just won't hear them.
For example, a July 30 Washington Times article reported that a survey conducted by the Military Officers Association of America, an organization made up of active-duty officers, reservists, military retirees and veterans, found 52 percent of respondents "supported an outright ban on military service by homosexuals." Even more, 68 percent said changing the law to allow openly gay service members would have a negative effect on troop morale and military readiness.
Unsurprisingly, MSNBC failed to report that study, or other any other evidence of military officers' support for the current law. In March 2009 more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers signed a statement of support for the 1993 law. The only play the letter received on MSNBC was a brief mention by retired Army General Barry McCaffrey on the July 28 "Morning Meeting."
Issue of ‘National Security'
The most repeated talking point in favor of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" was the argument that discharging gays negatively affects national security.
Jonathan Capehart, a Washington Post editorial writer and frequent MSNBC guest, told "Morning Meeting" anchor Dylan Ratigan on July 28, "While it has been put in to the whole gay rights agenda if you will, this is really an issue of national security. We are booting people from the military, Arab linguists for instance, who could be on the frontlines of the war on terror, who aren't there because of this crazy rule."
Nathaniel Frank, author of "Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America," echoed Capehart's claim later in the broadcast. Frank stated, "Over 13,000 service members have been discharged under this policy and that includes about a thousand mission critical specialists, 300 linguists and 60 Arabic linguists. So this is a national security emergency."
But Frank is also Senior Research Fellow at the The Michael D. Palm Center, a research outlet based at the University of California at Santa Barbara that advocates for gay, lesbian and trandgender inclusion in the U.S. armed forces. MSNBC didn't note that affiliation.
Deutsch also stated, "Since [Obama's] been in office, 267 folks in the military have had to leave because they're gay. We are a less safe country."
Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, also repeated that argument to a receptive Rachel Maddow on her July 29 television broadcast. "This law negatively impacts our national security...we cannot afford at all not to have language speakers with the paucity of language speakers we have in the intelligence community."
Statistics used to highlight the national security concerns of "don't ask, don't tell" are misleading, according to Donnelly's 2008 Congressional testimony about gay and lesbians in the military. She outlined this with regard to the discharge of Arab linguists:
Another round of news reports and hand-wringing commentaries centered on the loss of "54 Arabic linguists" trained for military service. This number is in a column of personnel losses noted by the General Accountability Office (GAO) in 2005. The referenced number is broken down, however, by type and level of proficiency of the language trainees, which varied considerably.
Donnelly also pointed out that, had the 1993 law been enforced, those linguists would never have been trained, since they were ineligible to serve anyway.
Other Countries Do It, Why Can't the U.S.?
Another popular argument set forth on MSNBC was the notion that gays serve in the militaries of other nations with few problems.
Capehart noted during his July 27 "Morning Meeting" appearance, "It's good enough for Great Britain and it's good enough for Israel, then it damn well should be good enough for the United States." Hall and Deutsch followed suit later that day with this brief exchange:
TAMRON HALL: We have 20 other countries including Great Britian who have gays serving in the military.
DEUTSCH: And Australia, Israel, everyone.
Again, as Donnelly pointed out in her testimony, America is not like other countries. Great Britain was forced to allow openly gay people into its military by the European Court of Human Rights, not through a vote of its own government. Also, as she noted, "European newspapers have reported recruiting and disciplinary problems in the British military" following the acceptance of open homosexuality in the military.
As for Israel, unlike the United States, every citizen must serve in the military. Donnelly also reported, "Israeli soldiers usually do not reveal their homosexuality and are barred from elite combat positions if they do."
Insults Levied at ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Defenders
MSNBC didn't just refuse to air another viewpoint on "don't ask, don't tell," it also allowed guests to insult the arguments of those who agree with the ban on open homosexuality in the U.S. military.
"All these arguments about military effectiveness, whether the military wants to do it or not, are irrelevant," said retired Army General Barry McCaffrey on the July 28 "Morning Meeting." For McCaffrey, the issue revolves around one question, "Is private homosexual consensual behavior legal or not." But as Donnelly explained to CMI, there is "no such thing as private behavior in the military."
Deutsch, who implied the defenders of the ban on gays were brainless, labeled arguments about homosexuality hurting military readiness and recruitment "stupid" and that "the fact that we are in the year 2009, that this is even still a discussion is - we should be ashamed of ourselves as a country."
To Deutsch those arguments might be "stupid," but as the MOAA survey indicated, they are very real concerns to the people whose lives depend on readiness and morale. Forty-eight percent of the respondents believed that allowing open homosexuality would result in a "very negative" effect on troop morale and military readiness. Another 20 percent agreed that a change in policy would have a "moderately negative" effect.
A 2008 Military Times poll found that 58 percent of respondents oppose the repeal of the current law. MSNBC anchors and their guests failed to note these statistics.
Foster Discussion, Not Propaganda
A distinct problem occurs when a news anchor or host of a news programs agrees with the program's guest, as both Tamron Hall and Donnie Deutsch did on July 28.
Deutsch stated on July 28 that the two guests he spoke with, both in favor of removing barriers to gays and lesbians serving in the military "are right." His co-host Hall appealed for rescinding the ban as well, "What about the fact that we had a guest on our show, and he's been on Rachel [Maddow] and others, he speaks Arabic, a wonderful serviceman, because he is gay he suffers and falls under this ‘don't ask, don't tell.' Instead of looking at this falsity about morale, look at the number of strong men and women who could be serving this country."
This, Donnelly told CMI, is "not journalism, but advocacy."
If MSNBC cared about even the appearance of journalistic ethics, it would also report the polls of military personnel that indicate strong support for the law as it currently stands. Instead, MSNBC has positioned itself as not the "place for politics" but as the "place for liberal propaganda."
—Colleen Raezler is a research assistant at the Culture and Media Institute




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"European newspapers have
August 5, 2009 - 17:09 ET by MidAmerica"European newspapers have reported recruiting and disciplinary problems in the British military" following the acceptance of open homosexuality in the military.
Considering the open hostility of liberals towards the military that is probably their goal.
Don't ask, Don't tell?
August 5, 2009 - 17:18 ET by Chris NormanI know MSNBC has to be covered here, but it's nice thinking about a one day policy of:
"Don't watch, Don't tell."
Good for the veins bulging out of my forehead and neck, at least...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Obama had better not tamper
August 5, 2009 - 17:33 ET by KellyRwith 'don't ask don't tell.' Military recruitment will plummet.
Wow pay attention please.
August 6, 2009 - 04:41 ET by ZacraWe already have don't ask don't tell and recruitment is doing just fine; has been since the policy went into place almost 10 years ago.
The debate is about revoking don't ask don't tell and replacing it with
a policy that allows gays to serve openly. As a vetran I can say we all
know they are in there, but what keeps them safe and a team cohesive is
that it isn't discussed (like Isreal). Your private life should be just
that your private life. When Gays started wanting to bring their
private life into the streets thats when discrimination against gays
began... so cure for gay discrimination? Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Speaking of single payer
August 5, 2009 - 17:34 ET by jdhawkSpeaking of single payer crappy healthcare - that defines the military's healthcare. It is rationed with long lines, no "family" doctor - hey, your lucky if you get to actually talk to a trained nurse and inadequate facilities. It barely functions and that is with contract staff at every military facility to ease the ridiculously small active duty trained healtcare providers. What makes it almost work is that everyone that enters the military is "grade A" stock. That is one is pre screened before entering. Washed out are the sick, lame and lazy.
Enter the gay parade . . . I can just see the military healthcare system once the AIDES, and the panolopy of sickeness that accompanies the "gay" lifestyle descends on the military. This barely functioning healthcare system will surely grind to a halt.
Want to compound the problem? Years from now when all of these "gays" have left the service or retired, they will now descend on the VA. Now, if you think that the military has a barely functioning healthcare system, you haven't seen nothing to compare it to the VA. That is truly a underfunded, understaffed, freaking mess.
Don't believe me? Well, you can't get on a military base these days, but there is probably a VA close by. Go over and take a look. Take a good hard look. Talk to the patients about the care they are getting. It sucks, but so do "gays" in the military that is . . .
This healthcare coming to a hospital near you.
August 6, 2009 - 04:51 ET by ZacraI was in the service and had a hernia, went in for surgery and woke up circumcised..... to quote the doctor "I noticed you hadn't had that done." Never mind the utter humiliation of the event and the fact that I was not even consulted, there is no suing the military doctors (Navy). I come from a long line of military servants, my mothers experiance under my dad's medical (Army) resulted in a punctured lung from improperly set Ribs. My grandmother had 3 toes removed on the wrong foot when she was in her 40's and at the ripe old age of 92 an orderly killed her with an insulin injection "believing her to be in diabetic shock" when in actuality she fell asleep in the waiting room. (Army). My brother went in for bronchitis andthey gave him an injection that resulted in an infection that damn near cost him his arm.(USMC).
I took my wife to Naval
August 6, 2009 - 08:24 ET by BruzillaI took my wife to Naval Hospital Jacksonville when she had severe cramping and lower abdominal pain, and she came out with a urine sample bottle. She said they thought she was pregnant, so we went back the next day with her sample, and she came back out with another bottle. She said the first test was negative and they wanted to do another. We came back the next day, and she came back out with another sample bottle.
At that point I went in to see her doctor myself, and there was a lieutenant wearing submariner dolphins and a ballistic missile cruise pin. I asked him where the heck he got all is OB/GYN experience serving on a boomer full of guys! We asked for a real OB/GYN, and my wife's problem was properly diagnosed in a few minutes.
You should talk
August 6, 2009 - 08:39 ET by ricklailYou should talk to daughter. She kept taking her 1 year old son to the doctors at Pensacola. They never found the problem. When they moved back here they were assigned a civilian doctor. (Cherry Point MCAS does not have care for dependents.) The first trip to see her and she found the problem right off. He needs surgery on his sinus cavity.
Semper suprene nitens
North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy.
If they want
August 5, 2009 - 17:52 ET by UpNorthDADT repealed, they'll have to change the UCMJ. It prohibits behavior that Deutsch and Hall advocate for. So, it is not just DADT that they want to change or repeal, they also want to codify homosexual behavior as OK and legal. Will we have to provide off-base housing for their "partners"? Of course we will, in the name of "fairness". And health-care.
Hay, MSNBC, who asked?
August 5, 2009 - 17:57 ET by CobraManWhen I joined the Army, they did ask, and any gays who told were refused entry. Now they don't ask and gays can serve as long as they don't tell. This means that far more gays are serving now than 20 years ago, so where's the problem?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Here's the thing...
August 5, 2009 - 18:09 ET by CobraManThe vast majority of people who are opposed to DADT never served in the military. If they had, they would understand that, once your IN the military, you don't have a personal life anymore so no one CARES what you were like, what you did, prior to joining. Once you're in, you're one of many solders and your past doesn't count, so shut up, ruck up, and move out!
Oh, and stop asking for special treatment as you're NOT going to receive it! You're just like everyone else in the military, so I suggest you learn to deal with it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Cobraman,
August 5, 2009 - 18:15 ET by UpNorththat's precisely what MSNBC and libs in general don't get. The important part of DADT is Don't Tell!!!! Once in the military, you aren't a collection of civilians sitting around the old campfire, exchanging stories. No one cares, no one is interested, and no one asks, who, where or what you were. If anyone wants to serve, just serve, don't run your mouth about what you were or demand to be allowed to run down to the PX in your latest Perez Hilton designer jumpsuit.
They don't like "Don't Ask
August 5, 2009 - 21:16 ET by mostlymoderateThey don't like "Don't Ask Don't Tell" because they don't want soldiers simply to be "gay" in the military, they want soldiers "flaming gay" in the military. 'In You Face' gayness, like on T.V. or movies.
It's almost like the enemy really IS within and this is their best way to screw-up morale in the military.
Who is best to decide?
August 5, 2009 - 22:37 ET by beauxdogThe military should not be a giant social experiment and keeping the liberals hands off of it is very difficult. The military is a very different world from the one you and I live in.
I am confidant that as the liberals in our schools teach our children to accept the homosexual lifesytle, that one day it will not be a big issue in the military. But who should decide when that day has come? I believe the miliary itself should make that decision. I am talking about the career officers, soldiers, airmen and seamen. I am NOT talking about the political level that changes with each administration. I trust my life and the security of my country to the men and women who serve (including my son). I think they can be trusted to make this decision for themselves.
As for your need for gay arabic translators? They can serve just as easily as civilian contractors. But then... aren't we trying to gain the trust of the arabs? I don't think they particularly care for homosexuals. I think they stone them to death if they violate the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" doctrine.
Thank you.
Beauxdog
Mad Libs
August 6, 2009 - 00:24 ET by 24enak"It's been a long time since MSNBC could pretend to be anything but a shill for liberal politicians, policies and causes."
It's been a long time since (Fox News) could pretend to be anything but a shill for (conservative) politicians, policies and causes.
To call a spade a spade the only difference between Fox News and MSNBC is their political slant. Back in April FNC overwhelming "covered" (promoted) the TEA parties. MSNBC is against 'don't ask don't tell'.
"Cable news' self-described "place for politics"
Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced" what are they talking about? the food they serve at Fox News HQ. They don't have a 'liberal' host of any kind, they had Colmes but he was just Sean's doormat, and he is no longer their. Just as MSNBC doesn't have a 'conservative' host though they regular have Pat Buchanan on.
→ enak
August 6, 2009 - 00:37 ET by Cool ArrowName five Conservatives on MSNBC.
You're sure you've never heard of Geraldo Rivera?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
The only ones that come to
August 6, 2009 - 00:49 ET by 24enakThe only ones that come to mind is Pat, and Joe Scarborough but I don't MSNBC that much, except for KO.
Geraldo Rivera doesn't much cover politics, he covers stories like Micheal Jackson and natural disaters and mainly does field work.
The same opposite question towards you. Name five liberals on FNC.
<< It's been a long time
August 6, 2009 - 03:12 ET by Seabeach4348<< It's been a long time since (Fox News) could pretend to be anything but a shill for (conservative) politicians, policies and causes.>>
And what's wrong with that? I recall that the left continues to tell us that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC favor the conservatives and the right, and that we should shut up and not accuse them of being too liberal (or is the PC term "progressive" now to describe them?) I cannot think of a more ridiculous assertion.
<<...Back in April FNC overwhelming "covered" (promoted) the TEA parties.... >>
Kudos to FNC for providing us with modicum of journalism and for covering how ordinary Americans are showing their disgust and contempt for the outrageous expansion of government, increase in taxation, and assault to our freedom about to be foisted upon all of us by one of the most deceitful and corrupt admistrations and Congress in our history. Shouldn't that be the objective for all the rest?
In contrast, the other five syncophant Brand-X major news networks ridiculed, marginalized, and demonized (the usual tactics) those who participated in the TEA parties because it doesn't fit their world view. But they appear to be right on top of any liberal protest or show of dissent, especially if it's against our military.
Looks as if any dissent by the left is healthy and even patriotic; any dissent by conservatives is contrived, mean-spirted, dangerous, and even "terrorist".
<<...MSNBC is against "don't ask, don't tell".>> MSNBC is also against our military and will promote and support any issue that would embarrass them.
<<Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced" what are they talking about? the food they serve at Fox News HQ. They don't have a 'liberal' host of any kind, they had Colmes but he was just Sean's doormat....>>
Why do they have to have any "liberal" (or "progressive") host at FNC? If I recall the "Fairness Doctrine" was soundly defeated in Congress/Senate because of the efforts of people like the TEAs. And if Alan Colmes was nothing more than Sean Hannity's doormat, that tells me that his arguments were weak and without merit.
I seriously doubt that one can compare the daily venom, hatred, the personal and professional attacks, the skewing of the facts, and the blatant promotion of outright bald-faced lies and misinfomation without apology against the Bush admistration for eight years by MSNBC and the other networks to what goes on a FNC.
Moral Kombat
August 6, 2009 - 00:45 ET by 24enak" Military Officers Association of America, an organization made up of active-duty officers, reservists, military retirees and veterans, found 52 percent of respondents "supported an outright ban on military service by homosexuals." Even more, 68 percent said changing the law to allow openly gay service members would have a negative effect on troop morale and military readiness."
This is a Human Rights issue, not a popularity contest. If it was then I would bet that if polled prior military men would not have voted for blacks, or women for that matter, to be it fully integrated into the military (which was in 1954).
Human Rights should never be a popularity contest, any knowledge of history and prior mistakes that have lead to genocide, and complete demolishment of cultures and civilization. For the genocide think of Hitlers' Germany, or the Spanish Inquisition, Rwanda, Sadam's Iraq. For the complete demolishment of cultures think of Native Americans forced to move and fight for their land in the 1800's, the Spanish conquest of South America, Britians Imperial History throughout (literally) the world.
Think of the Civil Rights movement and Jim Crow laws of the south where the majority continually voted and was ruled agianst in the court (dred scott). In the end Human Rights have prevailed but at what cost? millions of lives, generation upon generation of racial and social inequalities?
Like the previous examples I do believe that one day openly gay people will serve in the military, but why wait?
Who cares if the person beside you in the trenches, at work, at school is gay? If they are a good soldier, colleague, classmate who really cares who they are in a relationship with. If it doesn't effect how they perform they should be allowed to do their duties.
A few months ago Jon Stewart made a clear point about this 'moral kombat' in which he said, to parapharse:
(about the issue of releasing the detainee photos) The issue of torture is difficult, on one hand it is the only way to protect America from a 'ticking time bomb' scenario, and thus it was o.k. to torture, to keep Americans out of harms way. On the other hand the photos of detainees being subjected to the same America protecting enhanced interagation techniques puts Americans in harms way.
Then there is Dan Choi a Arabic linguist who was kicked out of the military for being openly gay, one of 53, since 1993. America has used every asset to combat the war on terror, from warrentless wiretaps, to prisons on foreign land to escape US laws, to torture is there any line that America will not cross? Oh yeah, no gays. "So it was o.k. to waterboard a guy 83 times, but god forbid the guy that could understand what that prick was saying, has a boyfriend." Waterboarding may make them talk but it isn't going to make them talk english.
Here is the link to the whole segment, for those iterested. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-14-2009/moral-kombat
P.S. My apologies for my Keith Olbermann-esque rant.
Omitted a fact
August 6, 2009 - 05:01 ET by ZacraYou neglected to mention that your boy Dan Choi came out on 60 minutes after repeated attempts by his command to keep his gayness in check, they turned a blind eye till he became an activist. He went on camera in the Uniform of Our Country and kissed a man. I would suggest that is a violation of a very clear policy. If you can not follow orders there is no place for you on the front lines of any war that goes for every man and woman for that matter. Discipline.
Whenever troops come home
August 6, 2009 - 12:14 ET by 24enakWhenever troops come home from combat what is the first image you often see upon their return, hugging and kissing their wife and children, should we kick them out of the military for that. He kissed a man, the person he loves (I'll assume).
So his command knew he was gay and yet they completed missions without problems, yet he was allowed to do his duties as a soldier even though they knew he was gay.
He did break the policy so he was kicked out, so I think they should change the policy.
I disagree. Be gay at home.
August 6, 2009 - 16:33 ET by ZacraHe went on National TV for the sole purpose of being an Activist. He got what he wanted. No the policy should never change. I don't think it is OK for men to kiss in front of children, and frankly grown adults shouldn't be subjected to it either. What is between you and yours can be between you and yours. What happened to Privacy?
So is it OK for a man to
August 6, 2009 - 17:55 ET by 24enakSo is it OK for a man to kiss his girlfriend or wife in front of children, and on national tv. Good lord he wasn't wearing latex mesh and doing more inappropiate things, they kissed.
What is between you and yours can be between you and yours. What happened to Privacy. I agree, but then should you outlaw all forms of Public Displays of Affection between everyone. Holding hands? Kissing? having a dinner for two? The fact is that their is a double standard if gays in the military can't kiss in public then neither should heterosexual couples.
~Latex mesh?
August 6, 2009 - 17:58 ET by choselife3xWhat the he-never mind, I don't want to know.
Are you really trying to say that there is no difference between a man and wife kissing each other and two men kissing each other?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
The only difference is that
August 6, 2009 - 18:23 ET by 24enakThe only difference is that the latter is taboo but that doesn't effect the type of soldier he is (was). If he and another gay man kissed on the battlefield then that would be inappropriate and a punishable offensive, of course it would also be a punishable offensive if a heterosexual couple kissed while on the battlefield.
~Why
August 6, 2009 - 19:20 ET by choselife3xIs the latter taboo?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Taboo: proscribed by society
August 6, 2009 - 20:15 ET by 24enakTaboo: proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable. Two men kissing each other in public is taboo in America, is it not?
~Again
August 6, 2009 - 20:20 ET by choselife3xWhy is it considered by society to be unacceptable?
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Seriously
August 7, 2009 - 05:25 ET by ZacraIf a gay person want's to be openly gay there are many major cities with large populations of them, Chicago, New York, hell the whole state of Californication (most liberal communities claim to be supportive). Why do you have to join a branch of the service to be openly gay? You remember the whole when in Rome thing? It applies to society as a whole. If you don't want to fit in, then don't, but don't complain about discrimination. You can't have it both ways. Society will likely evolve and cultures will change but if you want to be at the front of the line pushing it then you have to be willing to take your lumps, and the truth is there are going to be plenty of them. Gay just isn't a conservative cause, not to say we are anti gay or homophobic, we just don't see the need for something that personal to ever be discussed or displayed in public.
Don't ask don't tell doesn't
August 7, 2009 - 11:47 ET by 24enakDon't ask don't tell doesn't apply for the whole gay community, just those in the military. So if a gay soldier wants to be openly gay there is no place he can be that, unless in his home with the shades down.
"if you don't want to fit in, then don't, but don't complain about discrimination." So minorities in this country should complain about being discriminated against? That is stupid and unamerica. Since the Republicans lost the election and are in the minority in the government should they not complain about.
They aren't choosing to be different like being goth, or getting a tattoo. I believe that they didn't choose to be gay, just as I didn't choose to be straight. Just as people don't choose to be black, or blue eyed, or left handed.
So why don't conservative push for no public displays of affection by any sex, and not just if your gay and in the military. The fact is there is a double standard against gays in the military, gays that are fully able and willing to fight for your and my freedoms.
A What?
August 6, 2009 - 08:32 ET by CobraMan"This is a Human Rights issue, not a popularity contest."
People don't have a RIGHT to serve, it's a discretionary service. A Well Regulated Militia, remember? That means we get to pick and choose who will serve.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Only the fittest can and
August 6, 2009 - 12:23 ET by 24enakOnly the fittest can and should be in the military, that is what is well regulated. Not if a person has blue eyes, or is black, or is left handed and should be changed to include gays. If a person is well qualified, and physically fit to serve than they should be allowed to serve.
They're already in the military
August 6, 2009 - 20:22 ET by Sergeant ROCKAs any sodomite apologist will proudly tell you.
What is being demanded is that they 'serve openly'. What the hell does that mean?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
~Flicking each other with wet towels
August 6, 2009 - 20:30 ET by choselife3xRunning through the barracks with pink flip-flops while wearing their towels as capes, and sleeping with their teddy bears.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman
August 6, 2009 - 20:34 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, it would not be a 'jelly doughnut' that he would find in one of their footlockers?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
~Oy
August 6, 2009 - 20:48 ET by choselife3xI'm young and innercent, I had to search the reference. I've never made it past the first 20 minutes or so of that movie. *shiver*
In answer, I would say...no. ;-)
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Ah, yes. Sterotypes.
August 6, 2009 - 21:00 ET by 24enakAh, yes. Sterotypes. Hilarious. (sarcasm, my preferred means of levity)
~Aha!
August 6, 2009 - 21:05 ET by choselife3x(sarcasm, my preferred means of levity)
We have something in common, whaddaya know....
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Not sure
August 6, 2009 - 20:50 ET by ParagrouperMaybe they want to have their special set of rules. Perhaps they feel the need to express their personal views on everyone else--the kind of stuff that no one else in the military enjoys.
I know! special uniforms--maybe a scarf!
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
Special Uniforms
August 6, 2009 - 20:54 ET by Sergeant ROCKWould that include a matching knit hat and gloves?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Why the Heck Not
August 6, 2009 - 21:01 ET by ParagrouperIf we're going to cater to special interests at the expense of good order and discipline--let's go all the way and throw in a lavander umbrella too.
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
~Ahem
August 6, 2009 - 21:07 ET by choselife3xThey prefer to call it a 'parasol'.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Oh yeah
August 6, 2009 - 21:17 ET by ParagrouperThat's the ticket!
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
Sergeant ROCK
August 6, 2009 - 20:58 ET by 24enakI believe it means that they can be openly gay with out any ramifications from don't ask, don't tell. Meaning they could be just as affectionate with their loved ones as heterosexuals are with theirs, in public.
They are in the military as evident from expulsitions from the don't ask don't tell policy.
Not buying it
August 6, 2009 - 21:08 ET by Sergeant ROCKI believe that, as demonstrated by those of that persuassion outside of the military, they want to be in-your-face about their 'lifestyle' without said ramifications.
Additionally, how will the military accomodate those 'serving openly'? Will the barracks, latrines and other accomodations be based on sexual orientation? Can we throw in transgenders too?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
I don't know for sure what
August 6, 2009 - 21:43 ET by 24enakI don't know for sure what the gay soldiers want, though I would assume that they would want to be treated the same as the other soldiers without having to withold the fact that they are gay.
The only thing that would change in the military, I believe, is the knowledge of gay soldiers. If a soldier was comfortable telling his fellow soldiers that he is gay. I don't think it would be manditory to where a name tag that says 'I'm gay' on it.
If the trangender can shoot a gun and meet the physical challenge of the military.
Dodge and parry
August 6, 2009 - 21:58 ET by Sergeant ROCKWrong. Homosexuals can't help themselves. They have to tell everyone that they're 'gay'. That's why, in spite of 'don't ask, don't tell' they are compelled to disobey and make an issue of their sexual orientation. So, no.. smartass, a name tag would not be necessary given the history of homosexual activism.
Obviously, you are not in the military. So, you know little beyond what your activist friends and websites tell you. Which is why you gloss over the point of accomodations. And grant considerations to the 'homosexual' while ignoring those that may not like sharing a barracks or shower with them.
Again, you liberals foolishly think that the military is a social experiment for you to play with. It is not.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
WRONG
August 6, 2009 - 23:26 ET by 24enakI didn't know that you spoke for the gay community. I think that eventually the pressure of being in the closet eats away at them, hiding their true identity, especially if they have someone special in their lives. Imagine you had a girlfriend (assuming you are a man) but that you couldn't tell anybody about her because if you did if could cost you your job. Put yourself in their shoes you couldn't tell family or friends about the person you love and are in a relationship with.
Pretending to be someone you are not for your professional life. I think that a majority of homosexuals come out of the closet when they are in a serious relationship with someone else. It isn't about disobediancy it is about human nature both sexual preferances feel the need to share their relationship with those around them.
No I am not in the military and no I don't have activist friends a majority of my friends are "good ol' boys' from Missouri. No this isn't verbatim from other websites but my own personal opionions.
My personal beliefs on don't ask don't tell is to make the military better suited against the war on terror. Dan Choi could understand what our enemies are saying, he is of the minority in the military that can understand what potential terrorist are saying in the field and while under interogation. Dan Choi was a vital part to the war on terror and because of the don't ask don't tell policy he is no longer a part of that cause.
To put it in the situation that was brought up numerous times defending torture and waterboarding. America has a detainee and we think that he has information about a bomb that could go off and kill many people. The only Arabic translator availble on short notice in the ONLY one that can understand what he is saying while being tortured. But the Arabic translator is gay and everybody knows it. Would you let that potential bomb go off killing innocent people, or would you let the gay Arabic translator do his job and help save those lives.
Unless your in idealostic idiot you would let the openly gay man translate the information the terrorist is giving.
Coming out of the closet
August 7, 2009 - 04:40 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, why do you want to remain in the closet? In today's climate it is celebrated to flaunt your lifestyle in the face of those that do not and will never accept your lifestyle as normal.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
I'm not in the closet
August 7, 2009 - 11:49 ET by 24enakI'm not in the closet because I'm not gay, and I don't have a walk in closet. The issue with don't ask don't tell is that it is forbiden in today's military climate to let anybody know that you are gay and in the military.
So how about we do this
August 6, 2009 - 21:12 ET by ParagrouperInstead of listening to what you want, how about we ask those in the military how they feel about it--since were all into feelings and all. Maybe they got an opinion on the subject--and not just the gays--all of them.
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
It isn't a popularity
August 6, 2009 - 21:51 ET by 24enakIt isn't a popularity contest. If left up to a popular vote of service men then the military might not have intergrated the military. Further more soldiers follow orders, they don't make the decisions for combat missions, 'is the majority of the squadrant agree or disagree with bombing this location'
If you broach the topic with high ranking officers and officials I think would be the right thing to do because if nobody is on board with gays serving in the military than I don't think it should be instituted. I would like to believe that many of those high ranking officers and officials would give the O.K. But at the end of the day the president has the power through executive order to make it happen.
Ain't gonna happen!
August 6, 2009 - 22:05 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe majority of those in the military are opposed.
And it will take more than an Executive Order to make it happen. If that's all it took, Klinton would've done it.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
So your a spokesman for the
August 6, 2009 - 23:30 ET by 24enakSo your a spokesman for the gay community and the military as well, very interesting I hope the military doesn't know about this or you will lose your spokesman job for them.
When was this poll conducted? And once again soldiers follow orders they don't make the orders. Dan Choi didn't follow orders and he was discharged, so if don't ask don't tell is ever apealed then soldiers that refuse the order to fight side by side with a gay person would be out of a job as well.
Sodomite Apologist
August 7, 2009 - 04:26 ET by Sergeant ROCKHuh? No, you would be the one that is the 'spokesman' for the homosexual agenda. I merely point out that based on what I have seen personally and otherwise, the military from top to bottom is largely opposed to the social engineering that sodomite apologists like you propose.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Funny That
August 6, 2009 - 23:19 ET by ParagrouperThe military doesn't have a choice because they are considered unique from the rest of society, per the supreme court, because of their unique and essential mission. If you broach the subject with high ranking officers (since they were already asked and have voiced their opinion to the civilian authority) you would find that they generally oppose the removal of DADT because they believe it would have a "detrimental effect on the good order and discipline in the military."
I will agree that the government can change the policy, because the military is all about following orders. They should, however, understand the unintended consequences of such actions in an all volunteer military, who could simply leave if they don't like the working conditions.
Ideology, meet reality.
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
Finally, you get it,
August 7, 2009 - 11:56 ET by UpNorth"Further more soldiers follow orders". And the part that pertains to soldiers, is "Don't Tell". Why do you find it so hard to understand that? Are you being dense, or just disingenuous? And again, the President has the power to do away with DADT by edict. But, the Congress will have to change the UCMJ to allow the gays to pursue their lifestyle.
So, you don't want the idea of DADT left up to the soldiers who have to live in that environment, but it's ok to leave it up to the "officers and officials"? Hypocrite!!!!
No I think it would be smart
August 7, 2009 - 16:16 ET by 24enakNo I think it would be smart for the president to gauge the reaction of high ranking officials, but NOT to leave the decision up to them. If there is zero support like I said earlier than it wouldn't be smart to change the don't ask don't policy.
Reading seems like a problem for you.
Human Rights Issues?
August 6, 2009 - 10:01 ET by Matthew PhilbinAt least two of the situations you site, Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, were solved by a disciplined, cohesive military with high morale. I believe the I recall something about how the slave trade was ended by the British Navy, and slavery in the U.S. by the Federal army.
You libs are the ends-justify-the-means guys. Why screw around with the effectiveness of a military that can deliver so much good to the world just to satisfy a petulant minority? Or is the issue less about human rights than about subverting a traditional institution and remaking it in your image?
The fact is the military is
August 6, 2009 - 12:33 ET by 24enakThe fact is the military is now less effective with Dan Choi, a arabic translator, no longer in it. Like Jon Stewart said, god forbid the person that can understand terrorist has a boyfriend. No matter how much you torture a foreignor it aint going to make them talk enlish.
If I had to guess there were gays whom served in WWII, and we know there are gays in Iraq today and yet the mission was sucessful.
The issue is about human rights and making the military more effective. 'a traditional institution' Military fighting has come a long way from hand to hand combat, a traditional instiution at one point, but the military has continue to evovle to the point where drones are piloted half way around the world and the bloodshed in military combat have falling drastically.
Wrong
August 6, 2009 - 20:54 ET by ParagrouperDan Choi failed to follow an order, Allowing soldiers, especially leaders, to decide which orders they will choose to follow undermines discipline in the military.
If you can't understand that basic concept you can't understand the military and perhaps you should refrain from further pontification on the subject.
"Beware the fury of the patient man." - John Dryden
Liberals don't get it
August 6, 2009 - 20:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKCorrect on all counts.
The military is not a social experiment.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
24enak
August 7, 2009 - 03:22 ET by MrShyLike Jon Stewart said...
I think you lost all credibility here with that one.
Did you know Jon Stewart is an expert on nothing except, perhaps, comedy and comedic timing? Well if you didn't, now you do.
You apparently never
August 6, 2009 - 12:14 ET by UpNorthspent any time in a foxhole, or fighting position. For just a hint of what it's like, see Band of Brothers, the episode on Bastogne. Juxtapose an openly gay man into one of those holes in the ground with one or two straight men, it doesn't work!!!!
"Then there is Dan Choi a Arabic linguist who was kicked out of the military for being openly gay, one of 53, since 1993". Again, the important part of DADT is "Don't Tell". If Mr. Choi wanted to continue serving, all he had to do is keep his mouth shut and not proclaim his gayness on TV. Apparently, we also have to accept his lifestyle and let him make out with another man while in uniform?
And, you're wrong, it is NOT a human rights issue, it's a military discipline issue. The military is not a social experiment.
That was the same
August 6, 2009 - 12:42 ET by 24enakThat was the same arugruement for an all black unit in the military, Juxtapose an openly (black) man into one of those holes in the ground with one or two (white) men, it doesn't work!!!
That rule was changed in 1948 by an executive order from Truman and wouldn't you know the military was just as good when blacks and whites were juxtaposed in a foxhole.
Not knowing the man next to you is gay apparently doesn't effect how the military works, so what reason does knowing make a difference.
24eek, Dude, are you daft
August 6, 2009 - 18:11 ET by upcountrywaterBlack man heterosexual, White man heterosexual.
Reagan VS Liberalism
Who cares what they are,
August 6, 2009 - 18:28 ET by 24enakWho cares what they are, heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, man woman, as long as they are competent soldiers. That is the only thing that should matter when defending and protecting this country and countries of our allies.
And again,
August 6, 2009 - 19:47 ET by UpNorthwhen faced with the entire meaning of DADT, you choose to ignore the DT part of it. It's the policy, backed by the UCMJ, which forbids homosexual conduct, of the military that they can't ask. In exchange, for being allowed to serve, the service member doesn't tell. Hence, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's a volunteer military, they have the right to set the rules. Dan Choi could still be translating for the military, but kissing his boyfriend seemed to be more important to him, than serving. Another example of in-your-face, you have to accept my lifestyle, behavior. If they're competent soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen/women, they accept the part of their enlistment oath about obeying the orders of those appointed over them.
And again I think the policy
August 6, 2009 - 20:45 ET by 24enakAnd again I think the policy should be changed. I understand it is a military policy, but so was segregated units in the military and that was changed through executive order and so should DADT.
There are now 54 less Arabic linguist because of DADT and we have had two wars going on in Arabic speaking countries. The military needs Arabic speaking translators since there isn't exactly a surplus.
The DADT in and of itself is stupid. If your gay you can be in the military as long as we don't know your gay. So that would mean that there are gays in the military as we speak fighting the war on terror. Which means the gays are competent soldiers in the US military. The only thing that changes when 'outed' is perception, they would still perform their duties the same as when they were in the closet.
Why stop at gays, why not kickout other lifestyles why do we have to accept the vegatarian lifestyle, or a hunting lifestyle, or a Catholic lifestyle, or a Republican lifestyle, or a Democrat lifestyle. You don't have to accept their lifestyle to fight side by side. You my not like it, but tough stuff.
At work you will work side by side with a wide range of political views and lifestyles but it shouldn't effect your own work. Why don't we institute a DADT policy at work, at school, in the family. DADT is like sweeping dust under a rug, just because you no longer see the dirt the floor is still dirty.
I don't think I have called for the reinstatement of Dan Choi, I understand he broke the policy I think it is time America break the policy by allowing openly gay qualified Americans in the US military.
24e, None of that you mentioned, reverses poo egress.
August 7, 2009 - 01:40 ET by upcountrywatervegatarian lifestyle, or a hunting lifestyle, or a Catholic
lifestyle, Republican lifestyle, or a Democrat lifestyle.
However democrat lifestyle is about the closest...
54 felons maybe?
August 7, 2009 - 04:36 ET by Sergeant ROCKMaybe the military should allow felons, people in wheelchairs, 12 year olds, etc., just so long as they're 'linguists'.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
The only restritions that
August 7, 2009 - 11:58 ET by 24enakThe only restritions that should be allowed as a means of determining the qualifications as a soldier is physical restrictions, age restrictions, and if they can shoot a gun and follow orders. Felons have shown they can't follow orders (laws), people in wheelchairs don't meet the physical challenge, you must be 18 to serve.
The mere fact that closeted gays are allowed in the military means that they meet all the physical and psychological challenges to becoming a soldiers. So in fact gays can and are adequate soldiers, providing that nobody ask or they tell no one that they are gay.
I emphasize the fact that 54 arabic linguists have be kicked out because of don't ask don't tell because the middle east region has been fairly important the last couple of years in case you didn't know.
<< Why stop at gays, why
August 7, 2009 - 01:44 ET by Seabeach4348<< Why stop at gays, why not kickout other lifestyles why do we have to accept the vegatarian lifestyle, or a hunting lifestyle, or a Catholic lifestyle, or a Republican lifestyle, or a Democrat lifestyle. >>
This is a poor analogy. None of the examples given above involve two men (or two women) having sex or showing physical affection for one another while in the military. Apparently, it is a big deal when one has to work in confined spaces and in close physical contact with the homosexual as what occurs in the military. I don't understand why you continue to stubbornly ignore this even though numerous excellent explanations and analogies have been posted here. This should be a no-brainer that the rule DADT is important to maintain good morale and to preclude unnecessary stress and distractions.....things which could cost a soldier to become injured or to lose his life.
Quite a few years ago a guy applied for a job at a restaurant; this guy was a vegetarian. He knew up front that the restaurant served meat and meat products on their menu, and he knew up front that he would have to come in contact with meat and would have to serve it to the customers. After several weeks he complained to the restaurant owners that he refused to serve or to handle meat because he was a vegetarian. The owners told him to go suck eggs because he knew about this from the day they hired him, and if it was such a problem for him, he should have said so when he applied for the job....in which case they would not have hired him. Of course, they fired him, and he sued the restaurant owners for wrongful termination. Fortunately, he lost the case for "acting stupidly" by bringing a frivolous suit against his employer.
Why is this relavant here while we are talking about DADT? He knew the rules, he accepted the job, and then he wanted to change things and be granted special privileges. Likewise, a homosexual joins the service, knows about DADT and that the military is serious about enforcing it, then the homosexual violates the rule by announcing that he likes the boys and that he's got a boyfriend, and expects the military to be "progressive" and to look the other way to accomodate his "alternate lifestyle" (the special treatment part). From what I can glean, the military doesn't like privileged characters and kicks him out. What other outcome did he expect?
<<You don't have to accept their lifestyle to fight side by side. You my not like it, but tough stuff. >>
Have you ever been in a situation such as the one you describe here? Have you even been in the military and fought side by side? (If you have allow me to thank you in advance for your service to our country.) However, it's rather presumptuous when you assert that if it's OK with you it should be OK with everyone else.
And regarding Dan Choi: find someone else who speaks fluent Arabic! I'm certain that the military has plenty of them.
Tough stuff!
August 7, 2009 - 04:43 ET by Sergeant ROCKThese militant apologists have only disdain for those that oppose their lifestyle. You will accept their lifestyle as 'normal' or else.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Quoting you,
August 7, 2009 - 12:00 ET by UpNorth"and we have had two wars going on in Arabic speaking countries".
Wrong, Sparky, Afghanistan is not an Arabic speaking country. The majority in that country is Pashtun, that's what they speak. But that's ok, you made the same mistake as your Dear Leader.
O.K. Dan Choi could have
August 7, 2009 - 13:09 ET by 24enakO.K. Dan Choi could have only helped us in Iraq, like we needed, right (sarcasm).
The majority of the country speaks Dari (50%) and Pashtun (35%) according to the CIA factbook of december 2007.
And how did Obama make the same mistake? He is trying finish the original job that Bush couldn't, that would be the winning the war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Well, Obie doesn't have
August 7, 2009 - 20:02 ET by UpNorthHarry Reid saying, "the war is lost". Or Nancy Pelosi fighting two wars. Or, Obama voting to defund the war. And he said, on May 13, 2008, that we didn't have enough translators in Afghanistan because they're all in Iraq.
"And how did Obama make the same mistake? He is trying finish the
original job that Bush couldn't, that would be the winning the war in
Afghanistan, not Iraq". And you're wrong, Obama doesn't see"victory" in Afghanistan as possible, in his own words. So, I guess we're rooting for stalemate? A tie?
Take it to DKos pi314.
August 7, 2009 - 05:54 ET by JWFI read the Human Rights Declaration from the U.N. Nowhere in there is it listed you have the right to bop a fellow soldier of the same sex.
You want to make up rights. I have a few of my own. I am a chicken bopper. I want to sign up and bop chickens freely. That is my Human Right! Now, where do I sign up Sarge?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I don't think they want to
August 7, 2009 - 12:25 ET by 24enakI don't think they want to 'bop a fellow soldier of the same sex' I think they want to do that in the privacy of their home, when they come home from their duties like every other serviceman and woman.
Beastality I believe is a crime, though I am not for sure because I don't plan on 'bopping' any animal.
Does it feel better to get that off of your chest, and I don't think that 'bopping' animals is a human right. I believe it is against the law unlike 'bopping' a person of the same sex which isn't against the law.
Again, for those in denial,
August 7, 2009 - 12:39 ET by UpNorthit is against the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Article 125 of the UCMJ. You just don't want to acknowledge it, because it doesn't fit into your fantasy that everything will be unicorns and rainbows if only, if only the nasty military goes along with San Francisco, Chicago, New York, South Beach and other places.
I KNOW WHY DAN CHOI AND
August 7, 2009 - 13:17 ET by 24enakI KNOW WHY DAN CHOI AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN KICKED OUT, I KNOW THAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL WAS A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW GAYS IN THE MILITARY WITHOUT ALLOWING GAYS IN THE MILITARY.
I KNOW DAN CHOI BROKE POLICY AND WAS RIGHTLY KICKED OUT OF THE MILITARY. I AM NOT CALLING FOR HIS REINSTATEMENT, I AM CALLING FOR THE DON'T ASK DON'T TELL POLICY TO BE CHANGED.
IN MY FANTASY WORLD THE MILITARY WOULD HAVE THE BEST SOLDIERS, EVEN IF THEY WERE GAY. NO EVERY GAY PERSON IS QUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE JUST AS EVERY STRAIGHT AMERICAN IS NOT QUALIFIED FOR SERVICE. NOT ALL GAYS ARE THE CHARACTER THAT YOU SEE ON TV OR IN THE MOVIES. NOT ALL ARE LIMP WRISTED OR TALK LIKE A GIRL, SOME LOOK AND SOUND LIKE AN AVERAGE AMERICA.
IF GAYS WERE OPENLY ALLOWED IN THE MILITARY CAMO WOULD CHANGE TO RAINBOW COLORS, IN FACT I THINK THAT THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE IS PERCEPTION, OPERATIONS WOULDN'T BE EFFECTED.
My my,
August 7, 2009 - 13:24 ET by UpNorthyell much when you don't get your way? Tsk, Tsk, seems when a lib can't win an argument with made-up facts, and refuses to avail themselves of the facts available, they throw a tantrum. Even when you yell, you miss the point, gays were not questioned, they could serve in the military. But, in return, they had to abandon their in-your-face(man, that conjures up all kinds of bad images) lifestyles and not inform the world that they were gay and serving.
NO.
August 7, 2009 - 13:43 ET by 24enakI typed that way because that is about the third or fourth time I have said that. Tsk, Tsk, I guess you don't listen to Glenn Beck or Mark Levin who yell and shout their opinions every night.
CAN YOU READ? I didn't miss the point even when I yelled.
I KNOW WHY DAN CHOI AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN KICKED OUT, I KNOW THAT DON'T ASK DON'T TELL WAS A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW GAYS IN THE MILITARY WITHOUT ALLOWING GAYS IN THE MILITARY.
I KNOW DAN CHOI BROKE POLICY AND WAS RIGHTLY KICKED OUT OF THE MILITARY. I AM NOT CALLING FOR HIS REINSTATEMENT, I AM CALLING FOR THE DON'T ASK DON'T TELL POLICY TO BE CHANGED.
Kissing the person you love on tv after coming home from war is in-your-face lifestyle. I don't know Dan Choi or haven't seen him in publically in-your-face being gay.
Could you UpNorth hide your heterosexual (assuming, I don't know you) for your career. Meaning that you couldn't inform the world or your family members that you had a girlfriend because if you did you would lose your job.
~Hahahahaha
August 7, 2009 - 13:38 ET by choselife3xIN MY FANTASY WORLD
You can do whatever you want in your little fantasy world, but you can't get mad at everyone else for not conforming themselves to it.
You're trying to change human nature to fit your mold. The kind of man who volunteers to fight and die for his country DOES NOT WANT TO BE OGLED IN THE SHOWERS, THE BARRACKS, OR ON THE BATTLEFIELD. THEY DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T WANT IT, AND YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM.
America is waking up, sing louder. http://www.youtube.c...
everyone else doesn't have
August 7, 2009 - 14:01 ET by 24enakeveryone else doesn't have to accept I don't think that the military should kick out well qualified soldier for their political leanings, physical characteristic (like skin or eye color, or if a soldier is left handed) or their sexual leanings.
Apparently also the kind of man who volunteers to fight and die for his country is sometimes gay so whats your point. And you can make them if you make it an order, soldiers follows orders and if they don't follow orders, like dan choi didn't follow order then they will be kicked out of the military.
I could show you how to make that red if you want.
August 7, 2009 - 13:42 ET by SickofLibsI could show you how to make that red if you want.
Looks like someone popped a gay fuse.
August 7, 2009 - 23:37 ET by JWFI missed a meeting. I was out for a while.
Tell me, where was the support from the gay community and 24eunuch when we were going in to Iraq. Plenty of gays and eunuchs would have died for that cause.
Tell me again, where was the support in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or this year? Where was the marches in support for our military in any war for that matter? Where was the gay force out protesting against Code Pink or those nutties with signs at funerals for our fallen heroes? Where was 24uenuch? Where are the gays supporting our troops groups?
Tell me again, where is the gay support for a strong military? Where is the gay support for a strong national defense? Where is the gay support for keeping our nukes instead of dismantling them as Obama wants? Where is 24eunuch?
Tell you what, we will strike a deal. We will let openly gay conservatives and Republicans in the military. But we will now ban liberal and Democrat wussies from serving. Well, they can serve but we won't ask and they won't tell. And of course eunuchs will still be banned.
What was your stance on the Iraq war Mr. let the gays serve? Because there were most assuredly gay people that have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Or is this just another partisan issue where a wussie liberal just wants to have his way?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Questions are a two way
August 8, 2009 - 02:03 ET by 24enakQuestions are a two way street. I don't think I have ever seen the military or military personal march for the rights the gays want i.e. marriage.
Code Pink and those nutties have the right to protest, though personally I find the nutties much worse for going to the funerals of troops distasteful and see where a new law has been made to restrict how close they can protest. But they have the right to protest which is what the troops died protecting.
Isn't openly gay conservatives and Republicnas an oxymoron (unless it is a republican congressman, of course).
24eunuchs is one name I have yet to hear, so congratulations. By the way with the wussie and eunuch name calling I will assume you are in the 3rd or 4th grade? Please, name calling serves no purpose in what has been a fairly civilized discussion.
My stance on the Iraq war was that it wasn't apart of the mission of finding the cowards that killed 3,000 plus innocent Americans. Sadam wasn't a threat to us or any other country for that matter. His regime after the first Iraq war was a shell. And that he let on, by refusing UN inspectors, that he had WMD to impede Iran from attacking (they didn't like each other, ya know). I believe that the Iraq war was poorly executed and was underestimated by the higher ups. And because of that the initial reason for going to war with Afganistan was given less attention by the U.S. And now the war in Afganistan is still going 8 years later and casualities are at their highest.
Even though I was against the war in Iraq I still support and am grateful for the troops that have served and died in Iraq and yes both are possible. The decision to go to war isn't made by the troops, strategy and planning for the war isn't made by the troops, it is made at the very top of the command. Soldiers follow orders, they recieve orders they are paid to follow them, they don't question authority. (this is also why like at the nuremburg trials I believe only high ranking officials were persecuted, because soldiers follow orders)
To expand what really pisses me off is the abu ghrab sitiuation when Rumsfeld or Bush said something to the degree of 'those soldiers that did that were bad apples, and we didn't know the prisoners conditions.' I believe (this is all off the top of my head, so I could be wrong) that those soldiers (stacy england I think was a name) were punished. And we know now that Rummy and Bush were full of it. They knew what they were allowing because they had to do so much legal limbo to get around the law. But when those pictures were released they let the soldiers in the pictures take the fall, shameful.
Hey pinhead, I will call you what I want any time I want.
August 8, 2009 - 04:04 ET by JWFWow, sure went from wanting gays to serve in the military to being all about you dint it?
...personally I find... one name I have... name calling I will...My stance... I believe... Even though I was... I still....trials I believe...pisses me off... I believe ...so I could...
I want, I believe, I think, I find, I, I, I, I. What happened to the gay people? Looks like they got squashed by someone's ego.
Sure has come a long way from you stating the right to serve in the military is a Human Rights issue.
24enak: This is a Human Rights issue, not a popularity contest.
I will repeat again again again because you like all idiots don't listen. Where in the Human Rights Declaration does it list the right to serve in the military or the right to marry someone of the same sex?
24enak: Isn't openly gay conservatives and Republicnas an oxymoron...
Well, aren't you a little bigot. All gay people have to be liberal or Democrat now? Huh, bigot?
Hey bigot, thanks by the way for ignoring everything I said so you could go on an extended me me me rant.
I asked you, the guy that wants gay people to serve openly to answer some questions -
where was the support from the gay community and 24eunuch when we were going in to Iraq.
where was the support in 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or this year?
Where was the marches in support for our military in any war for that matter?
Where was the gay force out protesting against Code Pink or those nutties with signs at funerals for our fallen heroes?
Where are the gays supporting our troops groups?
where is the gay support for a strong military?
Where is the gay support for a strong national defense?
Where is the gay support for keeping our nukes instead of dismantling them as Obama wants?
All I got was personal crap from a pinhead bigot I don't care about in the first place.
24enak: Questions are a two way street. I don't think I have ever seen the military or military personal march for the rights the gays want
The military is not asking for anything except ammunition and weapons, bigot. This is now your dependency argument? Gay people can not join until the military marches for them? What kind of an idiot bigot forwards this statement?
You know what. You the idiot, the bigot have torqued The Vet. The answer is now no.
Gays cannot serve in the military. Nor will they be allowed to marry.
Bigot.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Dear Archie Bunker, I
August 8, 2009 - 10:57 ET by 24enakDear Archie Bunker,
I don't pretend to speak on the behave of gays, like many have wrongly done hear. I don't know what they want for sure all I can do is take a guess.
The reason for all the I's and Me's is because you Archie asked "what is YOUR stance on the Iraq war? That wasn't about don't ask don't tell it was about my stance on the Iraq war, and thus I answered in the first person.
What percentage of gays are Republicans? What percentage of gays are Democrat? No not all gays HAVE to be liberal, the fact is most are.
I don't know where they were because I don't speak for them, you will have to ask a actual gay rights leader those question because this is all my opionions. The ONLY person or group I will speak for is ME ME ME.
Talk to you later Archie.
You are rock stupid.
August 8, 2009 - 11:09 ET by JWFI stopped talking to you long ago and commenced to teh poundin', you rock stupid moron.
behave - It's behalf halfwit.
hear - here halfwit.
Oh look everyone, the bigot is calling me Archie. Wow, original. First he mocks gays by proclaiming none of them can be conservatives and Republicnas. Now he proclaims No not all gays HAVE to be liberal. The bigot wants us to know he is backing off all of the bigotedness. Cuz he is a good little liberal and just got caught showing his true colors and we can't have that now can we, huh? Bigot.
And yes, we noticed, you don't really care about gay people. The only thing you care about is yourself, ME ME ME. But then, most bigots only care about themselves, Mr. ME ME ME.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Archie, I never said gays
August 8, 2009 - 11:25 ET by 24enakArchie, I never said gays can't be conservative or republicans that is your own delusion. And if your going to call someone out for their spelling you might want to spell all of your words right. Just a thought
Bigotedness-not a word.
Cuz- is it TO difficult to spell out because?
That is why I don't call out other people on this site that spell a word wrong, because everyone misspell words at some point, a point you just made. And it is really shallow, don't attack the issue attack the person behind the issue, he's a moron, bigot, eunuch, he can't spell. Personally that is when I know a have them on their heels.
Rock stupid.
August 8, 2009 - 11:39 ET by JWFI quoted you. I will do it again. Bigot.
Halfwit 24enak - Isn't openly gay conservatives and Republicnas an oxymoron
...to spell all of your words right. Yea, stupid can't see sarcasm, can stupid? Stupidsezwatt?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I may spell like a 10 year
August 8, 2009 - 16:49 ET by 24enakI may spell like a 10 year old, but at least I don't act like one. Stupidsezwatt? Do I have cutties as well, how about this one I know you are but what am I? I'm rubber and your glue. We want a pitcher, not a belly itcher.
It is cooties you rock stupid pile of poo.
August 8, 2009 - 17:01 ET by JWFLord Almighty, what the frell is wrong with you?
After all this you still step in a pile of poo.
Cooties is a non-scientific term in North American English used by children for a disease or condition perceived to infect others, particularly members of the opposite sex. One catches cooties through any form of bodily contact, proximity, or touching an infected person's possessions. The phase typically passes by age 5-14.[1]
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Another thing pi314.
August 8, 2009 - 04:02 ET by JWFYou slipped. I called you pi314 and you let it slide right by.
And you are starting to feel comfortable. You are misspelling things left and right and leaving them.
he is no longer their - the word is there idiot.
Micheal Jackson - It's Michael idiot.
natural disaters - disaster idiot.
The same opposite question towards you. - Huh?
in the trenches - What is this? World War I? Idiot.
that prick - watch your language idiot.
inappropiate - inappropriate idiot.
and a punishable offensive, of course it would also be a punishable offensive - punishable offense idiot, offense.
That is stupid and unamerica. - unamerican idiot.
as evident from expulsitions - did you mean expulsion idiot?
trangender - transgender idiot
disobediancy - not even a word idiot.
opionions - do you ever check your what your wrote idiot?
idealostic - did you mean idealistic?
forbiden - forbidden idiot. Unless you work for the Vice President. I work for biden.
intergrated - integrated idiot.
squadrant - squadron idiot.
apealed - did you mean appealed idiot?
Reading seems like a problem for you. - Sort of like spelling is a problem for you?
Like Jon Stewart said, god forbid the person that can understand terrorist has a boyfriend. - Huh? Wha... Huh?
No matter how much you torture a foreignor it aint going to make them talk enlish. - Or whatever language it is that you speak, certainly not english. And it is foreigner idiot.
there were gays whom served - who idiot who.
sucessful - successful idiot.
instiution - institution idiot.
evovle - evolve idiot.
arugruement - argument idiot.
we don't know your gay - you're idiot.
Republicnas - cans idiot cans.
What grade was it you dropped out? We will let gays in the military when you graduate High School and can carry on an intelligent conversation with an adult. A conversation not riddled, I do mean riddled, with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors.
pi314 I don't get that one,
August 8, 2009 - 11:12 ET by 24enakpi314 I don't get that one, you will have to explain it, for the record it is at the very bottom of the list.
As for the speeling mestakes what are there like 10-15 speeling mestakes which with as much as I have type is mayber 1% or total words typed.
If this was a paper for school then There would be no speeling or grammaticl mestakes. But it is not. And ever since I seen this I have been ruined.
Acrcndiog to resecarh at Cimdrgabe Unierivsty, it deson't meattr what oderr the lertets in a word are, the only ionramptt thnig is that the frist and last lttrees are at the right palce. The rset can be a toatl mess and you can sitll raed it wutihot a pboelrm. This is becsuae we do not raed every letetr by itself but the wrod as a whloe.
Whatever, bigot.
August 8, 2009 - 11:25 ET by JWFYou don't want to be treated like an 8 year old, act like you have some measure of intelligence.
Did you forget this fast? You cited the same study in your previous incantation as pi314. Lord, you were rock stupid then, you have not learned a thing in your absence.
what are you talking about?
August 8, 2009 - 11:38 ET by 24enakwhat are you talking about?
Probaly you. yea, most probaly. yea. yea. probaly. yea.
August 8, 2009 - 11:57 ET by JWFBigot. Cyrano. Pi314.
The Vet was not the only one that wondered about the age of the (circumference of a circle divided by diameter) character. He couldn't spell, use proper grammar or punctuation, had a limited vocabulary & posted like a twelve year old AOLer. And he claimed spelling was not important. Yes it is. It shows you care about the things you are saying. It shows intellect. It shows the taxpayers of this country actually got something for the taxes they paid to the local county. (and now the federal government).
When have I, 24enak the one
August 8, 2009 - 16:58 ET by 24enakWhen have I, 24enak the one and only pseudonym I have ever:
When called out by people here that had facts, evidence and the truth, he would spew out every kind of ad hominem attack in the book - needling, goading, name calling, derision, & dismissiveness.
When have I ever started the name calling, if fact that sounds like you and others. I only name call on this site when provoked and called names first. I have done nothing but been respectful to others as long as others were respectful to me.
It is called a Subject line.
August 8, 2009 - 17:24 ET by JWFFill it out junior. We are not instant messenger buddies.
yea. probaly. it is the probaly troll. most definitely. probaly.
August 8, 2009 - 11:48 ET by JWFHey stupid, the word is probably.
August 8, 2009 - 11:09 ET by JWF
How many times are you going to spell the word wrong?
And the fact is more people probaly seen the stunt...
Glenn Beck would probaly cry about.
live time (probaly, '86,'69) the Cubs
balanced' one was probaly CNN, with MSNBC
It will be probaly another year or two
This is probaly the least bloodiest war
Seriously people, he is rock stupid.
he (writers) probaly crossed the line
This guy is probaly a return troll. Anyone remember a troll that probaly had horrendous spelling? Only a return troll is probaly this stupid.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
PS: I did not run out of prollies, I just got tired of looking. Seriously, this guy is moss on a rock stupid.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Hey probaly troll come back.
August 8, 2009 - 12:22 ET by JWFWe want to hear more about terrorist's boyfriends.
Russ the Probaly Troll - ...god forbid the person that can understand terrorist has a boyfriend.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Russ? Russy? Oh Russy Kane the 42 year old troll.
August 8, 2009 - 13:11 ET by JWFCome on. You are so smart to reverse your moniker when you came on to talk to all teh stupid conservatives. We is so teh stupids.
Tell us all about the terrorists that probaly has a harem of boyfriends.
...god forbid the person that can understand terrorist has a boyfriend.
In all candor Kane is my
August 8, 2009 - 17:07 ET by 24enakIn all candor Kane is my first name and 24 is my date of birth. I am not 42 years old, though I do look it. As I am balding, started when I was 16, been shaving since middle school. I am in my twenties.
Seriously, what the frell is wrong with you?
August 8, 2009 - 17:19 ET by JWFI have been batting you around like a cat does a cricket and you feel the need to disclose?
Alright Kane, I am Shub-Internet. Beast of a Thousand Processes, Eater of Characters, Avatar of Line Noise, and Imp of Call Waiting; the hideous multi-tendriled entity formed of all the manifold connections of the net. My purpose is malign and evil, and I am the cause of all network slowdown. The dread name of Shub-Internet is seldom spoken aloud, as it is said that repeating it three times will cause me to wake, deep within my lair beneath the Pentagon.
And of course I am also -
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Please view my profile.
As with Obamacare, it's
August 6, 2009 - 08:28 ET by BruzillaAs with Obamacare, it's great that these Congressmen and women can be so for a policy that has no impact on them. They aren't going to be forced to share a bedroom with a homosexual partner.
When I served in the Navy in the 1980s, we had our share of known homosexuals. Their orientation was largely ignored so long as they kept to themselves, which most of them did. When we went on deployment, they would share their own rooms and when we were back home they lived together offbase, so it all worked out.
Exactly,
August 7, 2009 - 19:51 ET by UpNorthBru, enak doesn't want to acknowledge that the "social engineers" in congress won't be affected by their decision, they just want to go home and look good to the GLBT lobby. Meanwhile, the good order and discipline will go to hell. But, hey, the military will look good while they go to hell.
Just like we'll look good to the world with single payer, but it won't work, that's why the congress critters and Obama want absolutely nothing to do with "regular" health care.
Leae it to MSNBC to quote
August 8, 2009 - 11:43 ET by NL207Leae it to MSNBC to quote Alcee Hastings.
"Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, also repeated that argument to a receptive Rachel Maddow on her July 29 television broadcast"
They neglect to mention that Alcee Hastings is also an impeached former Federal Judge. Impeached, as in removed from office by Congress.
Hastings was
August 9, 2009 - 15:18 ET by UpNorthimpeached for Bribery and Perjury. Nice source there, madcow. And, way to go there, all you folks in Fl-23 for putting this POS into congress. You must be so proud.