Jon Stewart Rips McCain Resisting Repeal of DADT; Paints Him as Crazy Japanese Soldier Fighting WWII in 1949
Liberal comedian Jon Stewart once again lampooned Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) over his continued opposition to repealing the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) policy, saying the senator is quite behind the times with his stand. "Well you're really going down with the ship, huh," he ripped navy veteran McCain's remarks.
"McCain's like one of them Japanese soldiers living on Okinawa in 1949, still fighting because he doesn't realize the war ended a long time ago," Stewart quipped. "And for some reason, even though he's been alone for years and years on this island, he doesn't like gay people."
Stewart opened his Thursday show with an eight-minute segment covering the DADT debate, in the wake of a published study by the military showing that the majority of servicemen polled don't mind serving with gay comrades. He trumpeted soundbites from multiple figures who support a repeal of DADT – including remarks from Sen. Joe Liebermann (I-Conn.), a usual target of Stewart's mockery.
"Oh no, don't look now. ...here comes ol' droopy dog, the Senate's Debbie Downer. (Whiny voice) Here's why I don't think we should," Stewart mimicked the senator. But when Liebermann's soundbite showed his support for the repeal, Stewart was ecstatic. "That is as fine a Chanukah gift that has ever been given!"
Of course, Sen. McCain was next on the list. Stewart described him as "a man who in 2006 said he would revisit his views on Don't Ask Don't Tell if and when military leadership said it was time."
"Then, when they said it was time, he said well, he'd need to see a study. And now that that study has been done – well this should be interesting," Stewart continued.
The "Daily Show" host then played the response of Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, praising it. "I think that landed," Stewart added approvingly. He then showed clips from the movie Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail in which a knight gradually loses an arm, another arm, and then his limbs in a swordfight – in a parody of the disintegration of McCain's argument.
A transcript of the segment, which aired on December 2 at 11:00 p.m. EDT, is as follows:
JON STEWART: We begin tonight with "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Legislation was enacted in 1993 designed to allow gay people to serve in the military, as long as they told their colleagues that the picture of the ripped, topless and bejean-shorted fireman that they had in their footlocker was Cousin Rico. It's the type of civil rights compromise legislation that typically precedes the more historic "Alright! You can have your civil rights!" Act. The House of Representatives has already voted to repeal. But what about that moody b****, the Senate?
(...)
STEWART: Oh no, don't look now. Don't look now, here comes ol' droopy dog, the Senate's Debbie Downer. (Whiny voice) Here's why I don't think we should.
(Video Clip)
Sen. JOE LIEBERMANN (I-Conn.): This country, from the beginning, was defined not by its borders, but by our values.
Every generation has realized those rights better, because they weren't realized at the beginning.
It's just wrong and un-American to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.
(End Video Clip)
JON STEWART: (Applauds) Well done, sir. I take the droopy-dog back. That is as fine a Hannukah gift that has ever been given!
(...)
STEWART: But really, there was only one senator that mattered in today's hearings – John McCain, a man who in 2006 said he would revisit his views on Don't Ask Don't Tell if and when military leadership said it was time. Then, when they said it was time, he said well, he'd need to see a study. And now that that study has been done – well this should be interesting.
(Video Clip)
Sen. JOHN MCCAIN (R-Ariz.): I'm troubled by the fact that this report only represents the input of 28 percent of the force who received the questionnaire – that's only six percent of the force at large.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: Well you're really going down with the ship, huh. McCain's like one of them Japanese soldiers living on Okinawa in 1949, still fighting because he doesn't realize the war ended a long time ago. And for some reason, even though he's been alone for years and years on this island, he doesn't like gay people. Alright Chairman Mullen, you want to address his concerns?
(Video Clip)
Adm. MULLEN: It was an extraordinarily positive response, when you talk about 28 percent of the 400,000 surveys that were sent out to the men and women in uniform, and the 150,000 to our families – more than statistically significant in all the key categories.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: I think that landed.
(...)
STEWART: So McCain's position weakened – what say ye, McCain?
(Video Clip)
From the movie "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail, KNIGHT: 'Tis but a scratch.
(End Video Clip)
(Laughter)
STEWART: He doesn't really have to listen to Admiral Mullen, see, because McCain said in an interview recently "In all due respect, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not directly in charge of the troops." Wow. Admiral Mullen?
(Video Clip)
Adm. MULLEN: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that as chairman I am not in charge of the troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battlegroup and two fleets. And I was most recently a service chief myself.
(End Video Clip)
(...)
STEWART: So the survey's pretty representative, Admiral Mullen has actually commanded fighting men – but he's still got a couple of limbs! Have at it, McCain!
(Video Clip)
MCCAIN: Certainly an issue of this magnitude deserves that leaders take into consideration the views of their subordinates.
Leadership is soliciting the views of your subordinates...
At least solicit the views of the military about whether this should be changed or not.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: This is the survey -- didn't ask for their views? (Reads from the survey) If Don't Ask Don't Tell is repealed, how would it affect how service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done? How would it affect how you trust each other, and pull together to perform as a team? How would your job performance and personal morale be affected?
(...)
STEWART: But perhaps most disappointing to Sen. McCain is the lack of leadership displayed by military brass regarding the policy.
(Video Clip)
MCCAIN: Everything I ever learned about leadership, everything I ever practiced about leadership, every great leader I've ever known always consulted with the subordinates for their views.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: They did consult with them. But you know who would be really surprised with Sen. McCain's view on leadership? Sen. McCain.
(Video Clip)
MCCAIN: Leadership and responsibility often entail unpopular actions...
I've take unpopular stands because I knew what was right.
I will never ever take a poll on a matter of national security.
I've been called a maverick, a somebody who marches to the beat of his own drum.
(End Video Clip)
STEWART: So, does that finally beat your drum? (...) We'll be right back.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It works for the British.
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 6:40pm.
It works for the British.
I agree. Actually, it works
Submitted by pratsha45 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:41pm.
I agree. Actually, it works in ALL nations of the civilized world - there are only a few countries left who discriminate and create second-class citizens:
-Iran
-North Korea
- The United States
- Saudi Arabia
-Pakistan
to name a few. I'm a conservative but I really wish we could remove our cancerous tumor (the religious right) from the conservative movement and let them spew their poisonous bile from their mouths somewhere else
What makes you think this
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:56pm.
What makes you think this is only something coming from the Religious Right?
Common sense will tell you that there can be trouble if you mix 18 to 25 year olds in close quarters if they have different sexual orientations. Common sense will also tell you that having the possibility of lovers together in a unit can lead to bad consequences. Common sense will tell you that if Gays are allowed to openly announce their Gayness that will break down unit cohesion. Common sense will tell you that if openly Gay persons are allowed to form their own social group based on Gayness that will break down unit cohesion. DADT allows Gays to serve (and serve honorably) but only as American military volunteers and not as a Gay American in the military.
Why are you capitalizing
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:52pm.
Why are you capitalizing "gay?" It's not a nationality!
hhhmmmm.... why do you care?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:59pm.
hhhmmmm.... why do you care? This is not English class.
Nouns:
Nouns name people, places, and things. Every noun can further be classified as common or proper. A proper noun has two distinctive features: 1) it will name a specific [usually a one-of-a-kind] item, and 2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in a sentence
It is also a good way to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:08pm.
separate the word meaning homosexual, Gay, from the word meaning "carefree, happy, and light-hearted."
Most Gays I have known, not all, but most, do not fit the latter category.
I believe that is a result of personal inner turmoil rather than the desuetude of social respect for GLBT's outside their preferred groupings.
MD
'MidAmerica',
Submitted by pratsha45 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:18pm.
'MidAmerica',
You have brought up some very valid points in arguing your position and I'd be more than happy to correct them. I was in the military four months ago and knew many, many gay folks who worked with me at multiple commands and mulitple ships in different countries, continents, and Areas of operation. Like having men and women in the same unit, working together amid potential sexual attraction is always an issue that servicemembers must deal with (like any other job in the United States) and I believe that military members are professional and mature enough to rise above the childish notion that gay folks can't be around because of this.
The quarters are actually not as close as the movies in Hollywood may portray - the only shared showers are in boot camp and bedrooms are always separate. You say "if gays are allowed to declare their gayness" as if this were a radical notion. However, blacks are allowed to say they're black, obese folks can say they're fat, tall people say they're tall, blue-eyed people say they have blue eyes, etc. so this argument is null and void. Bottom line, this is supposed to be a free country, now let's start acting like it.
From your experience it
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:21pm.
From your experience it sounds like DADT is working just fine. Why change it?
Having said all that, may I ask
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:06am.
Considering that in the Military, men and woman sleep and shower separately how do you think the "sleeping and showering arrangements" should change to reflect this and if not, do explain.
Really now?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:01am.
Really? I don't think you've spent a second in the military.
Do you know how heavily regulated relations are between men and women are in the military? Apparently not.
And yes, having been in them, I am well aware of how close the living arrangements are in deployed areas - especially while in transit. I'd argue that the issue is in fact a logistical one more than anything else.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am with you.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:25am.
His/Her story stinks to high heaven. In the military 4 months ago? Bull. I was in the Navy for 20 years, I can't name one person I knew was gay. Why? They are required to keep it to themselves or risk being BOOTED.
Quarters not as close as the movies? Just Boot Camp? Bull. The Marine Corp Commandant has just stated in the past few weeks that Marines of all ranks are purposely berthed together to ensure cohesiveness. All branches berth their lower enlisted together. Only higher officers are berthed seperately. All branches haves shared bathrooms.
Bull. Bull. Bull. Bull.
Bedrooms? What military guy talks like this?
YOU LIE pratsha45. You may want DADT repealed. That does not give you an excuse TO LIE TO US.
ha ha ha, I
Submitted by pratsha45 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:31am.
ha ha ha,
I do love a good challenge.
I'm glad you were in the corps for 20 years and congradulations, thank you for serving our country.
Indeed I was in the military four months ago and, no, you are incorrect about the discriminatin against people in the ranks.
'Don't ask Don't tell' was rarely enforced because so many of our highly technical and critical jobs were held by folks who happened to be gay and no one really cared - why would they? We have blacks, Jews, Tall people, hindus, brown-haired people, and any other normal American citizen to make up the diverse nature of the armed forces.
There were 7 gay people on my ship of only 200 people and, I'm telling you, absolutely no one cared about it - no one.
Why? Because quarters aren't actually that close - they aren't. Period. And frankly, who would care anyway? Isn't it way past time to move on from the whole 'gay people' issue? Gay folks have been around for thousands of years, even existing happily before Jesus Christ claimed to be 'the son of God', or whatever.
It's surely time to put on our 'big boy' pants and view the world for what it really is - there actually are people who aren't white, protestant, straight, and otherwise filling of your (obviously) narrow view of the world. Please feel free to debate me, that's what our country was founded upon.
prashta...you need to quit
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:14am.
1) He didn't say he was in "the corps" he said he was Navy. Try to keep up.
2) It's CONGRATULATIONS...I know the card you got said "CONGRADS FOR PASSING THE 2ND GRADE" but the "congrads" part was a PUN....look it up.
3) Links help. You keep pulling things out of your butt. We know you are lying but the least you can do is find some very biased article to help you.
4) I have been on a ship. The USS Tarawa to be exact. Quarters are very close. I feel free to call you a liar on that point.
5) Your whole last paragraph is tripe. How about you put on your "big boy pants" and address the many posters above who have challenged you. How about you tell us how you can consider yourself a conservative (or libertarian, pick one jackwagon) and then stereotype with "white, protestant, straight, and otherwise filling of your (obviously) narrow view of the world".
6) It is hard to debate you when you ignore everyone and keep spouting your BS talking points.
Still lying.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:38am.
prancer45 is still lying. And he has inadvertantly locked in his lie. Ship of 200 people LIAR? That can only be a frigate. Which frigate was it :LIAR?
YOU LIE. You were never in the Navy. I was. Remember?
Quarters are something you go to in the morning to get your daily orders. We slept in BERTHING. And yes, berthing is tight on a frigage. They are insanely small.
YOU LIE PRANCER. YOU FRIGGIN' LIE.
I'm retired military and just
Submitted by RealVet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 8:12pm.
What The Vet FKA JWF said. I'm also retired military and just about everything you maintain here is pure BS. "Obese folks can say they're fat" in the military? - Get a clue. They'll TELL you that you're too fat, then put you on a program and boot your ass out the front gate if you don't lose the weight. If you're a gay in the military, no one wants to know it - and acting like it or hitting on people will most likely get you thumped or ejected. Your whole argument is null & void.
In the military 4 months ago...
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 9:26pm.
Still not buying it. I was in the military, the USMC in fact, and I can tell you that Marines share a room in the BEQ. I was also on ship for more than a year combined between two WestPacs. For the first one, on the USS Germantown, LSD-42, I was a LCpl and berthed with an entire battery of E-3 and under Marines. We all shared the same head with the NCO's. We also shared the same chow hall, gym, and medical facilities. Two years later, on the USS Anchorage, LSD-36, I was a Cpl and shared berthing with an entire battery of NCO's. There were approximately two dozen of us in that berthing space which was about 12'x20' and included the old-style canvas rack, three high. Things were so close and personal that one Cpl who didn't shower often enough was banished to the passageway. He ended up moving into the well deck and slept in the cab of a five ton for nearly two months.
I was a section chief on an M198 howitzer. I had 8 men under my command. During one particular field operation in the Philipines, it rained non-stop for better than six days. My Marines, all of them except the driver of the five ton, slept either in the back of the truck, or under it That's 7 Marines in two spaces of about 7'x8'. That's up close and personal.
So again, for the third time- what service were you in? What was your rank? And what was your MOS?
If you fail to answer again, I think its fair for all of us to dismiss your claims of military service as a complete fabrication.
I will not refuse to answer
Submitted by pratsha45 on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:40am.
I will not refuse to answer and I'm not a 'plant'
In reality, I was raised a conservative, was a member of the 'students for Ron Paul', and then went into the Navy after high school before attending college in Maryland.
I'd be more than happy to debate you on the topic in which you find yourself in the (30%) minority if you so please.
I was in the military and Dont' Ask Don't tell was rarely enforced. Period. There are quite a few gay people running around here on base in San Diego and the local gay clubs are PACKED full of gay military guys- I don't want to here it. Simply Google some gay clubs in San Diego, CA and you'll see it for yourself......No one's hiding their sexual orientation regardless of the law.
Pratsha45
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:13am.
Fail Epic Fail
The man asked you specificaly to try to prove you were in the military.
So again, for the third time- what service were you in? What was your rank? And what was your MOS?
If you fail to answer again, I think its fair for all of us to dismiss your claims of military service as a complete fabrication.
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2010/12/03/jon-stewart-rips-mccain-resisting-repeal-dadt-paints-him-crazy-japanese-#new#ixzz17Oqtn3fo
You refused to answer. Therefore you are a liar and a troll.
We Are The 53%
Hee Hee Hee
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 8:43am.
prancer45 was talking about gay people and said PACKED. What was PACKED prancer?
I'm calling BS right here and now
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:09pm.
Really? gay clubs in San Diego are packed with military, you say?
You are full of crap and have never done a day in JROTC, much less the military. Known gay clubs are routinely placed off limits to military members. And to enforce this, they are watched by the CID (Army), the OSI (AF), and whatever the Navy/Marines have.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uh, I didn't call you a "plant".
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:41pm.
I do suspect, however, that you're not more than 15 y.o. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about regarding the military, and apparently still haven't googled "MOS" to see what that means.
Now, finish your homework and then right to bed young man.
pratsha "pratfall', has indeed---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 12:31am.
fallen on his prat, and has been outed as a youngster blogging out of the basement.
Aside from not providing any evidentiary material of his military time, other than to say he "was in the Navy four months ago", I believe he is trolling with "DADT Gay bait" in order to attempt to elicit some homophobic remarks so as to broadcast how bigoted conservatives at NewsBusters are.
He has failed, obviously; because of resounding truths administered by the Vet, bkeyser, Unsane, and others.
What struck me as a glaring fail in his little charade, was that as a 'supposed' sojourner in the Navy, pratfall referred to the "corps".
I grew up in San Diego, and every sailor, and I mean every sailor, knew, and knows, it is "the Corps."
Young bozo not only cannot differentiate as far as what is proper and/or common military terminology, he can't even make a reasonable attempt to do so.
Only Marines serve in the Corps.
This acne afflicted putz uses serving in 'the corps' in place of serving in the 'military'.
Denny Crane was right.
Epic fail.
MD
Hmm, I am beginning to detect the maloderous aire of a plant
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:01pm.
Notice I didn't say troll.
Plants smell far worse than the nastiest trolls one will ever encounter.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
What kind of Plant Dave?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:39am.
pratsha didn't even start out very well, but luckily this kind of plant has a hard time pollinating.
Top 3 give away's to being a plant?
1 Using a Democratic talking point "We stand with N. Korea, Iran and Pakistan"
2 Claiming to be a conservative and then bashing the majority of conservatives.
3 saying "conservative movement" It's not a movement, It's a philosophy.
We Are The 53%
Denny,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:45am.
Not exactly sure what kind as yet, but #2 would probably be a good guess.
Time, as it always does, will tell.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Your pathetically wrong
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:15pm.
The USA is the most tolerant country on the planet. But stupid little libtards like yourself just hate being American.
I for one, sure wish you would go elsewhere, your bigotry sucks. BTW your about as conservative as Nanny Pelousy
How many countries have you
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:24pm.
How many countries have you been to again? I suggest you visit a few before making such a strong statement as "The USA is the most tolerant country on the planet."
Take this survey for instance:
http://www.rankopedia.com/Country-With-the-Most-Tolerant-&-Friendly-Citi...
Canadians are ranked almost twice as high as the country with the 2nd most tolerant citizens. (not the US either, per this survey) Have you visited our friends to the North recently? You might need a reminder.
Yeah, the Canadians are
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:31pm.
Yeah, the Canadians are tolerant because the government has the authority to FORCE a tolerant viewpoint on it's citizens. They also restrict free speech. There's nothing like fines or imprisonment to get people to agree to a governments demand.
Canada's free speech laws are
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:34pm.
Canada's free speech laws are quite similar to ours. I'm not sure where you found your false information but I suggest you question other passages from the same source.
That's debatable, Ted
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:43pm.
Zted, We have this here, yea right....
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:53pm.
http://www.steynonline.com/images/rotator/bchrt%20decision.pdf
The Canadian Islamic Congress didn’t like Steyn’s article, so they talked a trio of Muslim Canadian law students to take Steyn and Maclean’s to court, charging them with “Islamophobia.”
Except, of course, that there’s no such crime as “Islamophobia.” As Steyn explains:
But that doesn’t matter whether on not “Islamophobia” is a real crime, because those Canadian Muslim belligerents didn’t take Steyn and Maclean’s to a real court. They took them to something called a Human Rights Commission.
In Canada’s extra-judicial Human Rights Commissions, all the traditional legal niceties are dispatched with or turned upside down. Truth is no defense. Evidence can be seized without a warrant. The complainants have all their legal expenses paid for by taxpayers, while the defendant has to pay all his own bills.
You Didn't Build That.
I'll say it. Dead Zippers LIES again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:28am.
As usual, his idea of debate is to bring a discredited liberal talking point, drop it, and then run when confronted with reality.
You LIE Dead Zippers Zippius.
Canadians you kidding me?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:11pm.
Canadians hate everyone, except some other Canadians. Look how they come on this American Political forum and try to tell us what we should do, as if they are such a remarkable example. I used to vacation in Canada quite a bit, but I just cant take em anymore.
As far as your poll is concerned, I aint buying it.
And that Canadian
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:20pm.
military? Am I missing something here? What military...the Mounties? LMAO! Please inform us. Inquiring minds want to know....
G
Canada is not really an
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:31pm.
Canada is not really an independent country. Because it went down the European style socialist path it has eaten it's military to pay for it's social welfare costs. So now Canada is a protectorate of the US.
Wikipedia: In history, the term protectorate has two different meanings. In its earliest inception, which has been adopted by modern international law, it is an autonomous territory that is protected diplomatically or militarily against third parties by a stronger state or entity. In exchange for this, the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the real nature of their relationship. However, it retains sufficient measure of sovereignty and remains a state under international law.
Now I know you're not really
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:36pm.
Now I know you're not really using Wikipedia to explain publicly that Canada is not a real country, right?
Any country without a
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:41pm.
Any country without a serious military is not really a country.
. But then, Canada has only the US to it's South and polar bears to it's North so why bother.
More on Canada
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:15am.
It should be noted, Ted, that their game plan was to run screaming to the United States for help if anything bad happened during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. In fact, the United States Air Force supported operations in the skies above British Columbia during the entire duration of the Games. This should be very embarassing for a country like Canada which is ultra sensitive about its sovereignty. But they don't care at all.
I have had lots of pleasant experiences with the Canadians, espiecially my recent visit to Ottawa. However, I'd read my post further below to learn the ugly truth. Besides, if they were such a sweet, superior deal to this country, I would suspect you would have moved there long ago...eh?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nephew
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 2:14pm.
The Mounties are not the only weapon we Canadians have at our disposal. We have an "ice bomb" We'll deliever in the next few weeks. It will rain down frozen water on you and bring ice cold air that will freeze you all to death..don't say I didn't warn you!
-love and kisses - mandrake
You're more than welcome to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:29pm.
You're more than welcome to find anything substantive that contradicts that poll. I've only had pleasant experiences with Canadians and I spent much of 20 years living several miles from the border.
I am not suprised
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:06am.
I've only had pleasant experiences with Canadians
Nanny State elitist would tend to get along.
find anything substantive that contradicts that poll.
I work with folks from all over the world. I have been told by Africans, Indians (dot), Asians of all stripes, and a host of others, that they have not heard a single slur or been denied service in the US like they were in (name that country).
Unfortunatly, a large chunk of Americans, hate their fellow Americans. Class warfare, our Gov likes to break us into little groups. So at their convenience, they can pit us against each other, to prevent us from looking behind the curtain. In spite of this, the US was 5th in your poll.
I am with you on this one Ted
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:44am.
I have duo Citizenship and I have love for both countries. Canada after 911 opened up their homes to stranded Americans that could not return home until flights were resumed and they are an important ally with us in Afghanistan where many have lost their lives. I also believe that this not real country is our largest trading partner and supply us with over 50 percent of our oil.Shawn is a perfect example of a Canuck
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 2:06am.
Politely opinionated
"Crawfish alert",
I dont want anyone thinking I have a true dislike for Canadians. I certainly do have an appreciation for them, as well as for many other folks.
I just like America, and her folks, better.
Boudin
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 2:37am.
I am not under any misconception about how important the United States has been to the world and it's military to Canada, but it was hard to stand by and hear people say it's not a real country. The United States would take an enormous hit especially on imports if it was not for Canada.Then simply go back
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 8:27am.
Nah. The cold, hard truth is that your beloved Horizontal Demographic Chile needs the United States far more than we need them. The problem with your country is that it needs a country to export to. Before 1945, it was utterly dependent on the United Kingdom. After 1945, it switched from being a peripheral country to the United Kingdom to being a peripheral country to the United States.
You can try to argue that point, being a good patriotic Canadian, but it doesn't change a thing.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You can do better than that Shawn.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 8:44am.
Defining a countries worth by it's exports?
By that measure, I have seven countries living in my house. They export all over the yard. Although, they can hardly be held up as a standard because I pay for all of their imports. But alas for I do love them. Every day when I come home is the 2nd coming of Jesus. You woulda swore I had died but no JOY JOY JOY he has arisen and chose to come home!
What great contribution to the planet has a country made? What scientific, medical, economic improvement has the country advanced on this planet? Try more along those lines Shawn.
Gotta Help Shawn Here
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 9:32am.
Canada gave us HOCKEY. For that I am grateful. The United States however perfected it in the Detroit Red Wings.
However
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:59pm.
The gold medal Olympic hockey champions are? ;-)
Cheaters?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 9:34pm.
;-)
We Are The 53%
Canadians suck
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:19am.
Well okay Montreal and Vancouver are doing okay. But the Leafs, Sens, Oilers and Flames suck.
As for the Olympics you had the home ice advantage and still lost to the US in pool play. In all fairness, they should have had to beat the US twice. BUT...they won and congrats to them. It was a good game. It only made me hate Crosby more....whiney little bastard.
lol Sentry :-)
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:25am.
I believe the last gold Canada won in the Olympics was on US soil wasn't it? The US is an up and coming power and they took Canada to sudden death OT. It was really really hard to pick a side. Its almost like watching your brothers fight each other.
Shawn
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:38am.
That is correct since both the US and Canada got smoked at the Turin games in '06.
Not to derail
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 12:56am.
anything Shawn, but who picked your Olympic team? Oh, that would Steve Yzerman, wouldn't it? Which team was he captain of? For 20 years or so?
Hi Upnorth
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:39am.
Sorry did not see this post until now. Steve Yzerman is a truly amazing player. He has duo citizenship like me :-)
Vet
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:38am.
Unlike Herp. Thank you for not putting words in my mouth. I think Canada has proved itself a great ally for our country.
They have sacraficed much for the United States with helping us in the WOT in Afghanistan. After 911 they have shown us much support. They also fought along with us on D day.
As far as inventions and what they contributed, it is very small compared to the US, but I guess that would include the Telephone, Basketball and Insulin.
I think even though this was narated by Tom Brokaw, I thought this was a very good video describing Canada.
Crowing about your country yet again.
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:03pm.
And it should be noted that two of those things were STILL invented within the borders of the United States for some bizarre reason.
Insulin? People in your country better enjoy that. It is the one and only advance they will ever give medical science, especially after they decided it is much better to baby people instead. Once you start to baby people with"free" medical care, kiss your ability to innovate in medical science goodbye.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Not crowing herp
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:23pm.
I was answering a respectful question from the Vet. Jumping into other peoples conversations again eh?
Loser228
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:48pm.
I suggest you shut up about jumping into other people's conversations. Especially after YOU DID THE EXACT SAME THING BELOW in a conversation I was having with hippiebear.
You blithering idiot.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Your right
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:51pm.
and I will never do it again, if you STFU and stay away from me, STD boy.
I know you are sorry. Now apologize.
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:35am.
Funny how a poster who is completely obsessed with prostitutes and someone who thinks prostitution is a wonderful trade which should be legalized is calling ME "STD boy".
My irony meter is pegged.
No, Loser228, you just keep making it more and more and more personal. Screw you. You think I am going to tolerate your barking orders at me?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yes STD boy
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:42am.
I'm not barking orders to you, just pointing out the fact that you are a miserable human being, and just like to make things up and is similiar to an STD. if you do not like the herpes thingy, do you prefer anal warts?
Continue to embarass yourself
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:50am.
Far from miserable, considering I am months away from one of my greater personal achievements...an event which would be completely lost on you.
And far from making things up. You need to develop some personal integrity.
But by all means, keep referring to me as a STD. You aren't hurting my feelings....all you are doing is embarassing yourself, and showing NB and all the world what a childish, immature little boy you are.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
"But by all means, keep
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:56am.
"But by all means, keep referring to me as a STD. You aren't hurting my feelings....all you are doing is embarassing yourself, and showing NB and all the world what a childish, immature little boy you are."Says the man that types the same word in caps over and over and shows his sexual frustrations by comparing things to orgasms. What is your crowing acheivement are you going to actually acheive what you compare things to without doing it manually?
Huh?
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:04pm.
Showing my sexual frustration? Hardly. That be you, as you routinely praise prostitution and porn on NB.
Bitching about my word selection is a sure-fire way to show how much you are committed to losing arguments on NB.
My crowning achievement is something that will make you roll your eyes in disgust. That's for me to know and you to find out.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Now you have me curious
Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 4:01pm.
What is this great personal achievement you speak of? Do you get to jam with Rush?
Nothing I wish to jinx
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:01pm.
Nothing I wish to jinx. But it has caused a dropoff in NB posting.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Keep it up
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:35pm.
I hope your extremely sucessful and you devote much time to your project.It looks like someone has
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:58pm.
It looks like someone has lost the debate and resorts to name calling in a most vile manner instead of trying to support their position.
It looks like
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:12pm.
Somebody has exaggerated what i said and will not admit it. Also his reply he called me aoser and a dirtbag. Two wrongs make a right eh?we call people losers and
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:48pm.
we call people losers and dirtbags alot around here but to start calling someone an STD? That is beyond the pale. Something tells me he must have struck a nerve for you to go down that route.
Hmmm
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:36pm.
For a person that boast about being able face a counter argument. You can't back up the fact that old posts are still there or the fact I said on this thread the US would be nothing without CanadaLooking back on this thread
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:01pm.
Looking back on this thread it appears that you were the one that started with the name calling at 10:23pm. You were not called a Loser until after that post. But you had immediatly started in with the vile STD name calling.
Are the old post still here? Grabbing a random blog entry I cannot see any of the old comments. Do any of the old comments show up on Track? Can you use the Search function to find them? I think the answer is a big negatory to that.
Why do you think so many folks have lamented that when NB "upgraded" that they left behind all the old posts?
scoob
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:35pm.
I did not claim I did not start it. It is years of frustration of him following me around like a love sick metrosexual puppy.
I will have to get back to you on the old comments, The search function worked just a couple days ago, seems not to be working at all today.
Ego
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:15pm.
Following you around like a love sick metrosexual puppy? My, someone here is just a touch full of himself.
I gotta agree with Scuba Dude...for you to be constantly referring to me as an STD like a middle school boy, I have to have struck a nerve someplace...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Why am I not surprised?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 8:23am.
Of course you are, shawn. This is because you aren't American. Everytime you come on here in defense of your country, you go out of your way to NOT acknowledge its very serious flaws, such as its love of group rights and its deep desire to baby its citizens rather than protect and defend them.
This desire among its citizens to turn the government into a Big Babying Agency leads to interesting effects. I met two doctors and several nurses on a trip to Ottawa - and half of the nurses I met (residents of Windsor) wanted nothing to do with working in Happyland. Why, they actually commuted to Detroit to work as nurses there! Why? Because the United States actually PAYS people who work in the medical field.
Canada SHOULD do all those things you list, and perhapos they should even discount the oil they sell. They owe us. For instnace, during the Vancouver Olympics, they were utterly unable to protect themselves. It was the USAF that flew support missions over your city and the USAF that granted logistical support (such as tankers). That's just one example I can think of from that time.
If your country is so great, so wonderful, and infinitely better than the United States, maybe your ought to go back to it. You and Ted can go together.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Another Flare up
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:05am.
"If your country is so great, so wonderful, and infinitely better than the United States, maybe your ought to go back to it. You and Ted can go together."I never said Canada was better than the United States or implied it. The only thing that overshadows your ignorance is your arrogance. It was nice not having you reply to my posts for over a month, I will no longer refer to you as the nugget I cannot flush. You are like a herpes sore that keeps coming back. Judging from this last post of yours putting words in my mouth, it is a typical itchy oozy puss filled Unsane sore. edit Oh and before you accuse me of SCREAMING SCREAMING SCREAMING, WHINING, WHINING WHINING and not able to face a counter argument, perhaps address something I actually said, and I will respond in a polite fashion, okay herp?
See, Loser228, this is what
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:26pm.
See, Loser228, this is what happens when you make a lifelong concerted effort to refuse to read. You eventually lose some very basic, simple common sense. But as your references to feces and STDs shows, it is infinitely more important to you to show NB what a childish, immature little boy you are. Seriously, Loser, what are you, 13?
You have been a member of NB for over four years now. Over this time, I have been reading your posts and have been observing your behavior and actions. And whenever Canada comes up, as it has here, and as you have done here, you enter full gush mode. One of your first pro-Canada posts from way back near your premiere on this site featured you gushing over 3 or 4 Canadian cities making the "world's most liveable cities" list, as well as your going on and on about how much better Canadian cities are because unlike American cities, Canada focuses so much on the quality of life of its citizens or some such thing. (Be thankful the posts from the past have been lost.)
YOu have countered my putting Canada on my list of countries that are Going Nowhere with gushing paragraphs and ending them with "I think Canada is a country that is going somewhere."
You have continually crowed about Canada's health care system, on one occasion proclaiming "Canadians are very happy with their health system". When I mentioned the Romanow report, the fact health care ALWAYS tops the list of voter's concerns in federal elections, doctors' and nurses' strikes, among other problems, you kept your mouth shut.
You have also, in the past, and imply such on this very thread, that the United States would be nothing without Canada on its northern border (your comment on oil ring a bell?).
You even are seen cheering on this very thread about Canada's hockey team. Tell me, Loser228, what in the hell am I supposed to conclude? Your behavior and history here on NB makes I never said Canada was better than the United States or implied it a lie. You don't NEED to SAY it; the ONLY thing I am doing, and what is making you angry, is the fact that I am merely reading your posts.
If that pisses you off so much, and apparently it does so sufficiently for you to lash out again in a manner befitting a middle schooler, maybe you better think twice, or three times, or a thousand times, about what you post and say here.
Besides, you have demonstrated you have lost the argument and are happy to do so. Nowhere do I see you actually facing a counter-argument I have posited, as is common for you. Your immature comments, making things personal and otherwise angrily lashing out only show me yet again, YOU HAVE NOTHING. Don't walk away mad, Loser228. Just walk away.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No herpe sore
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:50pm.
Not one link. Old comments are not gone except for the forums, your just too lazy to find them. 2nd of all, your the one that whines that I bring up old stuff and not stick to what is said on the article.
There are many times Canada is attacked on this site and ignore it, I was amussed when people said it was not a real country. I feel Canada has been a very good ally and trade partner of the United States.
I have not talked about how good the Canadian health sytem is for years. I also never said the United States would not be anything without Canada, I meant that Canada is important to the United States and Vice Versa, you just like to put words in peoples mouths.
Seriously dude, and before you whine about me bringing up stuff in chat, you whined on the board many times you cannot get a second date. Perhaps instead of calling me loser, think about why a man in his mid thirties cannot get a second date. You are such a blowhard about economics, and tell me how I want to take from the government, but out of the two of us one of us still rents right?
Sentry said he was a Red Wing fan and they perfected it. I asked him in a joking way, who the world champs are. I love both my adopted country and the my country of birth and for you to make the accusation of me prefering Canada to the US is a total lie.
I'm sorry if the herpes simile is hurts your itty bitty feelings but it is true. You have been stalking me for years and years. You are totally like a herpes sore. It goes away for a while, sometimes for months at a time, but the when the flareups happen, they are plentiful, itchy and scratchy and puss filled.
I told you, I am ready anytime you are to just ignore each other, but your facination with my posts is just borderline obsessive.
Really? I have been
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:29am.
Really? I have been stalking you for years and years? I've barely been on NB for MONTHS. I have only been active once again since Thanksgiving due to something I have called "a life". Maybe I should in addition tack on "lying" to my list of grievances?
And you are doing it AGAIN, Loser228. You have absolutely NOTHING with which to counter-argue, so you are angrily lashing out and making personal attack after personal attack after personal attack. I really don't know what my social life has to do with anything you are arguing for on NB, but here you are mentioning it AGAIN because at heart you are a major league asshole. By the way...have any proof?
I still find it amazing that you can say and do anything you want about any poster and think it fair game, but the instant people say anything about you, you immediately DEMAND proof in triplicate that you said anything of the sort. You do that here too, as you are a dirtbag without a shred of personal integrity.
You most definitely ARE a loser. Your only retort to me is to refer to me as an STD or as fecal matter. This is behavior befitting a middle schooler. I retaliate in kind with something MUCH tamer, and much more fitting (as you are the most sex-obsessed poster on NB, to say nothing about your perhaps even greater obsession with pot), and you throw a fit. Well, maybe if you didn't do something so childish, I wouldn't respond in kind. I don't believe in turning the other cheek.
I'm not going to ignore you. I will call you out on your stupidity every single time, and if you don't like it, you are cordially invited to stop posting on NB.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
lol angry using profanities eh?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:36am.
lol, no I don't have any proof. What are you going to tell me that you are popular around women and you go out of lots of dates and they find your personality facinating. I'm sure that is the case.
It makes me laugh when you preech maturity " today is an exception" when a you type SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM. WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE, WAAAAAAH WAAAAAAH. and compare things to orgasms.
"I've barely been on NB for MONTHS. I have only been active once again since Thanksgiving due to something I have called "a life"I told you already dipstick, that herpes flareups go away for months at time and when they come back they come back with a vengence. So do you have anything else to back up your point I like the US more than Canada except for the fact I said Canada is an important ally, they supply us with much of our oil and playful jab I gave to Sentry?
so i was standing on the sidelines laughing
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:45am.
but i gotta ask. why do you keep going on with such deep personal feeling and knowledge about the various "ins and outs" of both the disease herpes and it's symptoms and management. sorry like i said......just a guy on the sidelines laughing.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Thats fine porpoiseboy
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:48am.
My fight is not with you unless you want it to be. You have a nice night.
More stupidity
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:58am.
The only way you have to go after my maturity is word selection? For Shahinshah's sake, at LEAST accuse me of redundancy. That way you have ground to stand on.
I'm not running around comparing people to STDs. That be you.
And don't pat yourself on the back too hard; that wasn't my first time being profane on NB.
Yet again, your tired WHINE about my use of the word "orgasm". There IS a reason I use it. It is lost on you. I think I broke that out maybe TWICE in the past 12 months. Not exactly as constant as you insist, and as you emphatically insisted last January 5 on NB. (It is funny that THE most sex-obsessed poster on NB is crying about THAT.)
By the way, can you at least make a proper accusation? I never accused you of liking the US more than Canada. You like Canada more than the US. And I already answered that. You just lack the personal integrity to admit that I am correct.
You could admit I might be onto something, and then say something to politely disabuse me of that notion. But no; that would be an ADULT thing to do, which is something you are utterly incapable of doing.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am polite to most people
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 1:05am.
I have tried to be polite to you. I'm just sick of you making accusations you cannot back up. I took an oath years ago, along with a few thousand other people and becoming a US citizen and singing the national anthem for the first time was one of the best moments of my life.
Saying Canada is important to the United States is hardly liking them better.
Okay there, no flaming, no accusations. Balls in your court
Polite? Hardly
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:14pm.
Loser228, you are not polite. At all. That whine is beyond meaningless.
Be very thankful that past posts have been lost because I would fully back my accusations. You love Canada more than you love the United States, and that is a conclusion I have come to after reading your posts for the length of time you have been here. I cannot come to any other conclusion.
Yes, you can say all those things, take an oath, say the pledge, blah blah blah, but ultimately, I am going to go by your ACTIONS, your BEHAVIOR, and WHAT YOU TYPE HERE. That all tells me otherwise.
You repeatedly gush over your country over and over and over again at every opportunity. So, what the hell am I suposed to conclude?
This is EXACTLY what you are doing by stupidly focusing on my word selection. I have referenced the final phase of sexual response about 15 times in nearly FIVE YEARS on NB for a very good reason and unfortunately for you it has zero to do with sexual frustration. It has everything to do with something much simpler, which, if you bothered reading further than my reference, you could figure out very quickly. Hell, I can boil down the reason why I use certain words to plain, simple language but it is all quite lost on you, so why bother?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Once again herp
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 5:34pm.
I said Canada is important trading partner for the United States, they supply us much of our oil, they fought with us on D day and I am under no false misconception about how imports the US military is the Canada. Your interpretation was I said I said the US would be nothing without Canada, which is hardly the case Makes me wonder how a person that moans and whines about others not reading, when you can't even comprehend words Very clever of you making fun of my name, too bad you did not think of it when 228 was actually on my SN Also old posts are still there, just forum posts are gone you frickin moron.Stupidity
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:27pm.
I love seeing how you whine about how polite you are, and follow that by returning the form you had before your whining: childishly referring to me as an STD. You once again show me how you simply cannot embarass yourself quite enough, and that your brain, encased securely in a very thick skull, can be found in an average middle school boys locker room.
Anyways, I have responded to the sum total of four years of your ceaseless gushing about how wonderful Canada is. Maybe you should do the adult thing and just deal with it. I realize the concept of accepting the consequences of your actions is too much an adult thing for you to do, but you should consider doing so.
And it really is too bad for you that my reading comprehension is just dandy. When I read a person's post for four years, a pattern can be discerned, and I can make a pretty good argument about what someone believes, such as you. You don't like that, so instead of facing a counter-argument squarely - something you have demonstrated repeatedly you have no interest in doing - you angrily, and in this instance, very petulantly begin lashing out at people. I cannot figure out for the life of me why. I guess it is easier than being responsible and coming up with a counter-argument, and being as immature as possible.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No dipstick
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:29pm.
I was polite and said okay not flaming, no accusations and balls in your court. You then replied and called me a loser again.
I always face a counter argument directly, your the one that usually goes off on a tagent about something totally unrelated. Nothing I said on this thread or in the past says I like Canada better.
You can't back up your points, don't bring up any links and claim they are all gone. Anyways Unsane, I'm done with you tonight.
Pathetic
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:54pm.
...and you cannot, and simply refuse,to counter-argue. And you lie constantly about what you believe, and when called on it, you whine "I never said that!"
And it's once again very funny that you think you can say anything about me with total impunity. Everything I say, in your world, is 100% fair game. And you don't require any proof. If I say anything about you - never mind they are accurate reflections of what you say and think and what you have said and thought for the past for years, you SCREAM BLOODY MURDER and DEMAND proof of everything.
Seriously. Does everyone in your life have to record every single thing you say to anyone and everyone because you lack even the most basic personal integrity? Are you really that much of a dirtbag?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Canada, tolerant? Only if
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:47pm.
Canada, tolerant? Only if they agree with your opinions...http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ann-coulters-speech-in-ottawa-cancelled/article1509793/
Ted, perhaps you should ask Mark Steyn about Canadian tolerance
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:55pm.
Somehow I doubt you are going to like the answer you get.
And if you do, then you have a pretty twisted idea of what tolerance actually is.
What the Canadian government attempted to do to Mark Steyn was not tolerance.
It was tyranny.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Teddy
Submitted by ripper58 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 6:36am.
there are 2 Canada's...French and all the others! French Canadian's are the RUDEST people on the N. American Continent!!! All the others are socialists who envy the USA soooo much that it turned to hate (unless they need big bro to the south to bail them out militarily). I live less than 100 miles from Montreal and when the Frogs come over to shop and gamble we go the opposite way! Canada is bi-polar in their national identity, they have no idea who they are as a nation!
Well, Ted, if Canada is so
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:11am.
Well, Ted, if Canada is so wonderful, you can emigrate there anytime. Besides, they sorely need your tax money.
If this country is so wonderful and tolerant...well, I invite you to read Rex Murphy's commentary on The National from 10 January 2008 (or thereabouts - I know it was that week). Maclean's published excepts from Mark Steyn's America Alone, and THREE of Canada's "Human Rights Commissions" - one in BC, one in ON, and the federal one - each investigated the magazine for "Islamophobia".
Back in 2006, the Western Standard magazine was brought up before the AB Human Rights Commission for daring to publish the Danish cartoons of Mohammad that put the Middle East into such a tizzy.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is well known to support the view that group rights are far more important, and always trump, individual rights and liberties. But seeing as this complies with your world view, I can see why you don't have a problem with that.
Going further back in time, the way PM Trudeau dealt with the FLQ in 1969-1970 would make you and other American Leftists violently cringe.
You are woefully uninformed about the follies about our northern neighbor. I suggest you educate yourself further before crowing about how wonderful and tolerant they are. Because quite clearly they are not.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You're all missing the point.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:28pm.
You're all missing the point. This isn't about Canada being the most tolerant country in the world, but about refuting the absurd claim the the United States is the most tolerant. Let's debate that point, shall we?
No.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:40pm.
Shut up Guttermouth. Let's discuss your lies instead, huh? Oh wait, We have "Mike Bratton"'s forum for that.
~Absurd claim?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:47pm.
What do you base your use of "absurd" on?
What is tolerant about
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:19pm.
What is tolerant about everyone hating each other? Sure there are laws in place and almost daily attempts to make us all even more PC, but it certainly doesn't make us a tolerant nation.
How do the majority of Americans feel about Muslims, for example? We as a nation are split on every issue, and have never been more divided. The right and left both fling racism accusations back and forth, we have contempt for hispanics either because they're probably here illegally or because they just haven't learned the language yet. Every special interest group wants preferential government treatment.
As usual my comments are interpreted I MUST hate America, but I'm simply pointing out that our tolerance for others, even those with a different political view, is at an all time low.
I admit, I don't like muslims
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:32pm.
I admit, I don't like muslims as a whole. I don't trust the "religion of peace", and believe if we aren't careful we will find our freedoms limited by this religion.
That said, my car mechanic is a muslim, so is our heating guy. Despite how I feel about the group as a whole, I don't discriminate against them or act hateful to them in any way. Contempt for hispanics? As a group no, but if they are here illegally then they should be returned to their country and enter our legally. I don't care what language people speak to one another, as long as if they are working at a public institution like a school or hospital, they can speak and communicate in English.
Why do you think we are all so hateful because we want to preserve the good things about our country?
I don't think we're all
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 1:31pm.
I don't think we're all hateful, and I don't think most of us are hateful. But there are a lot of angry people these days and it is our differences that are dividing us. The same differences, mind you, that we all got past after 9/11 when for a short period we were all united as Americans.
I think we'll get past it and I hope it's sooner than later. But as 2010 comes to an end, this is one divided, intolerant country.
Assorted whines
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 8:03am.
Another whine about this country being "divided'. This country has ALWAYS been "divided" over issues. ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS. And no, I am not going to become a Socialist who believes the government's sole reason for being is to baby people just to appease others.
And if this is such an evil, intolerant country...well, pick a better one and go there.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Such a profound post! Too
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:52pm.
Such a profound post! Too bad about a dozen others already posted the exact same thing.
You posted a challenge to me.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:41pm.
Just the one. YOU CHALLENGED ME. And YOU RAN LIKE THE SISSY YOU ARE when I called your challenge.
That has only happened once nwahs the Sissy.
Now act like a man and fulfill your part of the challenge. I fulfilled my part. I NEVER STOPPED calling you nwahs. Sissy.
MAN UP AND CHANGE YOUR NAME BACK or admit you are a friggin' diaper wearing sissy.
The question remains, which
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:53pm.
The question remains, which of us can hold out longer, Duh.
original deddy...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 4:18pm.
More and more like bal everyday..
Zippius, Moving on down to one liners....
You Didn't Build That.
Whaever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:06pm.
Act like you didn't back down just like the sissy you are.
the Sissy nwahs: You can stop chasing me around from thread to thread, or you'll just have to deal with my name change.
Looks like I didn't have to deal with it huh?
Sissy couldn't change it fast enough.
Duh, the name change thing
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:08am.
Duh, the name change thing happened, hmm, 3 weeks ago? Why do you still care about this?
Humiliate yourself some more nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:55am.
Act like you are not the biggest SISSY here by saying XXXX happened days/months/years ago. Just like you whine that you are reformed from your days of harassing women and threatening their children, Oh Oh Oh, I just stalked women and obsessed about their children years ago. I iz reformed nah.
You are a SISSY that backs down from his own threats.
MAN UP sissyboy.
What new tactic you got up your sleeve now? Did you forget about your constant "Yes Sir JWF" deflections? How about you every other troll whine from the past month? COME ON. ALL YOU GOT IS MOVING FROM ONE DESPERATE TROLL TACTIC TO ANOTHER.
How is my meltdown working out for you? Stop me did it? How is the WOODSHED whines? How is the whines about TERMS OF USE? Stop me did it? How is the whines about DISRUPTING and DERAILING threads? Stop me did it? How is the name calling working out? Or the whines that everyone hates me? Stop me cold in my tracks?
Or any one of your 20 troll bible moves?
The Abridged Troll Bible - New Testament.According to Dead Zippers.
27. Whine that your troll offenses were long ago and now forgotten and you is reformed nah.
Where is that puffy chest of yours now? Huh? YOU WERE ALL BIG MAN WHEN YOU WERE THREATENING ME WITH KEEPING YOUR COPYCAT NAME.
WHERE IS THE BIG MAN NOW NWAHS?
Right here, Duh. Not going
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:52pm.
Right here, Duh. Not going anywhere.
Then change your name back SISSY.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:39am.
Oh coward. LIE some more.
It was never about you staying or going.
The SISSY Dead Zippers changed his name to a copycat of mine. Then tried to BLACKMAILme by telling me he would not change it back until I sent him a bag of cash and stopped putting the butt hurt on his poor trollie ass. I refused to put up with his BLACKMAIL so the SISSY backed down within days.
NOW HE LIES and acts like it is all about him sticking around.
YOU are a SISSY and a LIAR nwahs.
AND I PROVED IT ONCE AGAIN.
Oh SissyMan Dead Zippers. Man up you coward.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 9:25am.
Did you forget this COWARD?
Whatever nwahs. Keep shredding what little respect you had here. I am calling your little bluff right here, right now. I will continue to call you Dead Zippers as long as you have your arkasaszippers account active.. And I will continue to call you nwahs as long as you continue to act like him. What is your next troll move nwahs? You can't back down from this little stunt because you put conditions on it by saying you did it just because I dared call you a name of a banned troll. nwahs. Dead Zippers. DiaperBoy.
I. Called. Your. Bluff. You. Friggin'. Coward.
And you peed and pooped in your diaper and changed your name.
You still think I'm Zip, Duh?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 1:02pm.
You still think I'm Zip, Duh?
Yes.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 12/14/2010 - 9:11am.
As well as a Sissy and a Coward that tries to BLACKMAIL other users by changing your name to a copycat of theirs and then demands a bag of cash before you will change it back.
You sure?
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 8:30pm.
The EXACT same thing? You sure?
Besides, I have NEVER claimed to be an original thinker.
So, do you have anything else other than a shoddy attempt to be a smartass?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
No, do you?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 8:41pm.
No, do you?
Perhaps...
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:46pm.
Yes, but in order for me to engage in proper debate, you need to stop being a smartass. I have plenty more to say about plenty more things.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Look, you repeated the same
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:07am.
Look, you repeated the same sentiment as a dozen others before you. IF YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH - GET OUT! Apparently I have to point it out even to someone who wishes to engage in proper debate - I never stated that, nor hinted that. I love America, but we're a rotten bunch of selfish bastards, for the most part.
If you want to debate this issue you need to go beyond your personal feelings and provide data (as I did) comparing our tolerance level in relation to other nations. How are we tolerant? What makes us tolerant? Who makes us tolerant?
~Alright now, speak for yourself!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:06pm.
Your post reminds me of something that's always puzzled me. Liberals base their ideology on the idea that people are basically good.
Case in point: Criminals are only criminals because they're poor. Don't try to argue me on this one, Ted. Remember the guy who set the Times Square bomb? The media sobbed about how his house got foreclosed on a while back, due to Bush single-handedly wrecking the economy. I could list countless examples of the "He grew up in the ghetto, what other option did he have?" crap endlessly spewed on the behalf of the most vile criminals.
Now, if people are basically good, what is with the constant pessimism about and poor-mouthing of the general American public? Who are these intolerant people you're talking about? Are you intolerant? Any of your friends? Family? Co-workers? I? Am I intolerant? America voted a black man into the Presidency; is that intolerant? A bunch of white Floridians voted Allen West and Marco Rubio into office; is that intolerant? How about the Sikh Indian woman about to assume the governorship of South Carolina, the liberal's poster child state of misogynist redneck whiteys. How do you explain that?
Look at what happens with the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:51pm.
Look at what happens with the election of a new president. Roughly half the people in this country have no tolerance for Obama, and have had no tolerance of him since the early days of his campaign. And the same thing happened before with Bush. People are still clinging on to their hatred of Clinton. Simply put, we don't like each other, and we have little respect for each other's opinions.
We all have different levels of tolerance. I am quite intolerant on the freeway when I'm stuck in traffic, when I'm in a long, slow moving line at the grocery store, or when I see a non-union crew member performing union duties on set. Some posters here have no tolerance for the liberal viewpoint. Just seeing one of my posts brings out the ugliness.
I disagree with your claim that liberals believe people are good. I don't believe that, and I certainly don't respect anyone who maintains that belief. I work with a man who is so evil that the idea he was ever a good person is fairy tale territory. Maybe the news coverage you've witnessed suggests otherwise, but there is a clear difference between good and evil.
And not to take this in a different direction, but there is a difference between a criminal who steals a loaf of bread to feed his kids and a man who attempts to blow up Times Square. Wouldn't you agree?
Where to start?
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 2:57pm.
"Union duties on set"? What in the name of Walter Reuther are union duties? As opposed to a job that needs to be done? And, I'm asking in the sense of work, not "union rules".
As for Obama, half of the people in this country saw him as an empty suit, even back before he was immaculated. That makes them intolerant? And, for those who had no tolerance of Bush, or Clinton, that's the nature of the beast now, when politics trumps what's good for the country. And everyone is out to make their own deal. Not talking about the majority of the people who actually try to make this country work, I'm talking about the folks in D.C. and their mouthpieces, the Lame Stream Media.
As for your last, laughable paragraph, in 27 years, I never, ever, not even one time, arrested, or even saw a single person who stole anything, to "feed his kids". Feed his drug habit, yeah. Feed his need for booze, yeah. Feed his ego, yeah, Feed his family, nope, never!!
Just like any other job,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 4:35pm.
Just like any other job, there are rules here too. A non-union cameraman shouldn't be working as a shooter on a union set - a rule broken by our production almost daily. An electrician may not build anything, a costumer may not apply makeup, and a producer may not direct. Each position has its' own duties, and you don't break them.
You're right though. Never in history has a criminal stolen something in order to feed his family. Didn't you just use that excuse on another thread? "I've never seen it happen, so that means it doesn't happen."
I've never witnessed immaculate conception, but it's widely considered truth. See the holes?
Perspective
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:14pm.
Sorry, constant SN name changer, but this isn't a monarchy or dictatorship. I know you, being a good Leftist, simply want to be ruled but many of us would rather be governed.
It's weird, I know, but because this is something called a representative democracy, we aren't all required to immediately fall in love with whatever new President gets elected. This may deeply shock you, but in the military, you don't take an oath of allegiance to the President. You instead take an oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States". Weird, huh?
As much as you would prefer every single American unquestioningly follow His Majesty The Shahinshah at all times, it isn't going to happen. What, that shows the country is intolerant? Hardly. I'd say it shows how tolerant that we are that regardless, we are going to stick out this phase of history and hold an election in 2012 so that we may take out our differences at the ballot box instead of with, say, a coup, as what would happen in many other countries.
You really don't have a whole hell of a lot of perspective, and it shows.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Tolerance
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:04pm.
You and other Leftists so love and obsess over the word "tolerant". Yet American Leftism is about one of the most intolerant ideologies out there. And that is primarily because it is a failure and cannot stand up to opposing ideologies.
Sorry, whatever-your-NB-SN-will-be-next-week, but I don't need to go about seeking data on how tolerant other countries are. I've been to them. Thirteen of them, not counting the two I stepped in very briefly - in one case for only a few minutes because I would have been shot had I lingered much longer or stepped in the wrong direction. I also have this long view called "historical perspective". In short, I have done something you haven't - I've been around the block a few times.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
~Everyone hates each other?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:38am.
Could you be more specific?
Ted, the only way you could think this is if you've bought a complete lie, or you're ignorant of other cultures/human history.
The reason people still clamor to emigrate here over 200 years since our founding is because our country provides unprecedented opportunities for people of all cultures to thrive.
We've been a world superpower for the past two centuries; how many other countries have we taken over and colonized? We could easily take over all of the North American continent, but we haven't. How about the militaries of the entire African continent? Think they could give us a run for our money? We could have run roughshod over the place, killed off the natives, taken the diamond mines over, farmed the rich land, and made pleasure parks out of vast swaths of the savanna. We could have made a second America out of the place, it's quite rich in natural resources. Gee, why haven't we done something like that? Can you think of a few other countries that have tried to take others over? What country has sent more of her sons to die stopping the spread of tyranny than any other?
Here's an overview of our war dead from just the first half of last century.
WWI
WWII
Absurd?
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:06pm.
An absurd claim? Only if you hate the United States with a passion as most Leftists do.
Grab the 2009 year-end edition of The Economist. The article, IIRC, is titled "A Ponzi Scheme That Works". Read it, and then see what you think.
Besides, I didn't miss any point. You decided to start crowing about how wonderful and tolerant Canada was. You are now backpedaling after being firmly refuted.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
C'mon, this is something that
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:19pm.
C'mon, this is something that cannot be proven one way or another. I will say that the U.S. does not have a policy of genocide against a race of people. We also do not have laws restricting the actions or rights of any group of people. Not every country can say the same.
The U.S. isn't tolerant you say, Teddy?
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:39am.
We are currently allowing our enemies (in a time of war, no less) to emigrate here and live amongst us. Not only that, but we are on the verge of allowing this exact same enemy to build a monument to its most successful attack on this country (so far), literally within sight of where that attack occurred.
You know, come to think of it, tolerance can be not a little stoopid, not to mention suicidal, in a national sense. I think we are nearing that point, if we aren't there already.
Multiculturalism ultimately destroys nations.
Don't believe me? Just ask the next Roman citizen you run into.
Oh, wait...
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
dave, as a famous philosopher
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:50am.
once said. STOP MAKING SENSE.
thanks
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Did you click the link I
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:20pm.
Did you click the link I posted? We rank 5th, and I'd say that's still pretty good.
Nephew
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 4:55pm.
Trudeau and the FLQ in 1969-1970. Why would you have a problem with that? I was there, the FLQ had kidnapped two government officials and was threatening to tear the country apart. Bush would have done the same thing. I'm glad Trudeau did what he did cause Canada is still together.
I should clarify
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:09pm.
Me? Problem? I think Leftists in my country would be completely horrified by it. As for MY view, from what I have read and seen about the FLQ, what Trudeau made sense. "Just watch me", as he famously said on CBC...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Civil law
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:45pm.
vs. military law. Don't see the diff?, lefty?
G
Hey pratsha45, "I really
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:05am.
Hey pratsha45,
"I really wish we could remove our cancerous tumor (the religious right) from the conservative movement and let them spew their poisonous bile from their mouths somewhere else."
Those people in the religious right who would refer to gay people as a 'cancerous tumor' should be marginalized, just like pro-gay rights activists who refer to social conservatives as a 'cancerous tumor' should be likewise marginalized.
As far as they just have different points of views and wish to express them in a civil, non-hateful way, people in both groups should be welcomed.
Group rights
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:58am.
Your intense hatred of the United States is duly noted.
Gays and lesbians are not second class citizens in this country. Only people like you and hippiebear who think they have more rights and privileges than other citizens - the "group rights" you so cherish over individual ones - think otherwise.
I have no "right" to join the military. Neither does anyone else.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And how many British soldiers
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 12:21pm.
And how many British soldiers are in the American army? According to a survey taken of combat arms troops, 75% of them are aginst it. In other words, the Infantry soldier, tanker, Ranger, Special Forces soldiers do not want gays serving with them on the front lines.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Jon Stewart = idiot
Submitted by Mark111 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:13pm.
Jon Stewart is an idiot, as is anybody who believes in the lie of 'sexual orientation' as if it was identity and not some behavioural flaw. The truth is, you have male and female and they go together just as they have for centuries. What you feel is irrelevant. To be naked showering with people who are eyeing you off sexually is just some of what repeal of DADT will bring. The fact is the overwhelming majority of military do not want it.When will leftist morons get it into their thick skulls? The military is not there to be politically correct but to win wars.
The truth is, you have male
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:55pm.
The truth is, you have male and female and they go together just as they have for centuries.... Really? Over a hundred years, huh? Man, there have been men and women for, like, ever!
Better stick to teaching, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:16pm.
or whatever it is you do for a paycheck, cuz as a comedian, or comedienne, you ain't making it.
MD
P.S.
"cuz" is a shortening of 'because'.
There, that should save you making a reply to my reply.
good one mamabear
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:48am.
You are berating Mark for saying something correct by saying men and women have been around forever!
So are you saying evolution is a Myth? Next thing you know you are going to tell us that homo's have been procreating for, like, ever!!!!!!
We Are The 53%
I was being sarcastic.
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:40am.
I was being sarcastic. Matthew may not have liked the joke, but at least he got it!
Let's see...who should I believe about the possible effects
Submitted by virginia republican on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:16pm.
on the military if DADT is repealed? John McCain with his minimal military experience or Jon Stewart, the comedian, who is a decorated war veteran with not enough room on his old uniform for all the "fruit salad" he's earned? I guess I'll go with McCain despite that.
So let me get this straight
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:25pm.
Because of DADT the US military currently has NO gays in their forces. But if DADT were repealed the armed forces would be flooded with gays and thus be inefective..is that right?
No
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:34pm.
Whats your point?
It wasn't a point.
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:40pm.
It wasn't a point..just a question. If there are gays in the military now under DADT.. what differnce does it make if the law is changed? (NOTE QUESTION MARK)!
The point is
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:49pm.
Do you want people googling your junk and drolling on the shower floor?
spoke too soon, below...
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:56pm.
Here's the answer to your question:
The difference is that gays who are successfully serving in the US military have adapted to the good order and discipline that is the hallmark of our Armed Forces. Repealing DADT will open the door to person's wishing to serve only under a pre-condition -that being that their personal agenda takes precidence over the agenda of the service. This will effectively degrade the service at all levels.
and you know the Gays and
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:01pm.
and you know the Gays and their lawyers will be demanding an equitable number of Gays be promoted whether deserving or not.
MidAmerica
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:17pm.
I think what will happen is that when many homosexuals -who enlisted only as a result of the repeal of DADT- get passed over for promotion, they will claim their failure was based upon bigotry. Investigations will ensue. Tax dollars will be spent. And strong, effective leaders will be reprimanded, or worse, for not being sufficently tolerant. And then they'll leave the service.
I suppose BK...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:15pm.
the same argument could be--and probably was--made with respect to the integration of blacks and women into the military. Do you believe those historical phenomena elevated personal agendas over general military objectives and "effectively degraded the service at all levels?" You appear to be clinging to presumptions for which there is scant empirical support, and even if validated after implementation appropriate remedies would be available.
Jer
Don't think so, Jer.
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:19pm.
BK has been there, and done that. In the DADT military, not the get thee out faggot military.
I trust his judgement.
Everything else is just an opinion....and as you know, everyone has one.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"Been there, done
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:41pm.
"Been there, done that"...where gays were permitted to serve openly? I don't think so. My mind isn't made up--an effective military must be a (and remains my) paramount concern, and you presented several cogent counterarguments a year ago. But I'm not convinced it would be a totally untenable, unworkable undertaking. The principal fears with respect to blacks, women, and DADT also proved to be largely unfounded
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:05pm.
The fears regarding blacks (classic racism) and women (sexism) were, in fact, largely unfounded. But they weren't reflective of reality either. Blacks and women can perform as well or as poorly as any other race or the other gender. But with homosexuals, you're talking about a political agenda. They are taking a political position and only consenting to serve in an all-volunteer force if they can do so in the manner in which they feel most comfortable.
Serving in the Marine Corps -which is my only frame of reference- isn't about standing out in the crowd. It starts the moment you get off the bus on Parris Island with those yellow footprints. We were all peices of sh!t, whether we were black, white, hispanic, asian, male or female. We were all the same. In fact in the USMC, we were all green. But for homosexuals who'll only serve openly, there will be green recruits on those footprints AND gay ones. A separate group that stands out from the rest. Serving openly means serving in a manner that highlights, draws attention to your status as a homosexual. You're different and the only way you'll put on the uniform is if everyone knows it. That's anti-evrything the military stands for.
Don't repeal. Ever.
[Edit] Come on Jer, you engaged. I'm interested in your take regarding my replies...
For heaven's sake, I can only
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:24pm.
For heaven's sake, I can only type one reply at a time. I'll be back. Gotta make a Chik Fil-A run.
Jer
That is the lamest excuse
Submitted by bretzysdude on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:48pm.
That is the lamest excuse I've ever heard. You opened up a can of worms, you got bombarded, admit it.
I can't believe you wasted
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:09pm.
I can't believe you wasted your time typing that comment, and I can't believe I'm wasting my time responding to it.
Jer
I hope you're bringing me a
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:55pm.
I hope you're bringing me a lemonade and a slice of cheesecake.
Hurry Rad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:16pm.
Better scarf that stuff down before MO makes it illegal.
Sorry, Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:31pm.
You should have said something, dear. And, cajun...it doesn't make any difference to me. My doc has already declared it off limits. [And it was my favorite back in the good ole days.].
Jer
Sorry Jerster*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:49pm.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/first_healthcare_next_the_food.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hold-the-brownies-obama-set-to-sign-bill-limiting-school-bake-sales/
Sorry Jer When the new HC kicks in, 26,000 HC commissions plus all the new regulations regarding food and produce, your Doc will be the last person you will be consulting. Stick to your healthy diet, wouldnt want the Jerster to have to face the "rationing" commissioner.
BK...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:19pm.
While I'm enjoying my chicken sandwich, take a few minutes and read this account [from Wiki] ot the Israeli armed force's experience re this issue. I think if there is any nation in the world which would reject a counter-effective military policy, it would be the state of Israel:
http://Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation.[12] This was put into effect in 1993 after an IDF reserves officer testified before the Knesset claiming that his rank had been revoked, and that he had been barred from researching sensitive topics in military intelligence, solely because of his sexual identity.
http://Homosexuals serve openly in the military, including special units, without any discrimination.[13][14] Moreover, gays in the IDF have additional rights, such as the right to take a shower alone if they want to. According to a University of California, Santa Barbara study,[15] a brigadier general stated that Israelis show a "great tolerance" for gay soldiers. Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York, who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times, said, “It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”[13]
Jer
Jer...
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:22pm.
You're the second person to bring Israel's military into a discussion regarding DADT (the other was at HotAir).
Minor detail (actually, it's a pretty massive detail) you either neglected to mention or where unaware of- Israel's service is conscripted.
And so...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:25pm.
What do you consider the most compelling point of that massive detail?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:33pm.
The simple fact that if service is compulsory, denying service to homosexuals would be discriminatory to everyone else. Of course gays are allowed to serve, they have to.
As far as the Israeli Army's experience with gays- it's probably very similar to that of the US. Most do quite well, thank you. But the issue of repealing DADT is a political one, designed to appease a certain small segment of the population that under any other condition, wouldn't join the military on a bet. Those that do, don't normally share the radical gay agenda that is pushing so hard for repeal. And those who've been discharged have been so on account of their actions in uniform in toto, not because they were outed by some redneck homophobe. Seriously Jer, in 2010, who do you think would carry more weight with a commanding officer, some pissed off kid yelling and screaming about the fag and his boyfriend, or the respected gay soldier with the outstanding fitreps and two service commendations?
But the issue of repealing
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:10pm.
But the issue of repealing DADT is a political one, designed to appease a certain small segment of the population that under any other condition, wouldn't join the military on a bet. So, where are you getting the idea that lots of gay people who aren't otherwise interested in the military will be rushing to sign trhemeslves up for years of difficult service in order to make a political point? Because so far, I haven't heard any hint of that. Also, if all of the gay soldiers discharged under DADT were actually guilty of other crimes and failures that justified removing them from the service, why weren't they discharged for those crimes or failures? If you think that the only reason those people were discharged was because of other problems, then why do we need DADT? Just discharge everyone who deserves it for the actual misbehavior they deserve it for! Otherwise, all you are doing is making it easier to get rid of incompetent gay soldiers than incompetent straight soldiers, and, excuse my bluntness, but that sounds like a stupid system.mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:35pm.
I didn't say that. I said a certain small segment of the population- which is a segment itself, of the gay population. I could ask an equally distant question based on your analogy: If no one from the gay community is wishing to join the military, why change the policy?
It doesn't make sense to argue on points that are entirely black and white, especially if they haven't even been presented. The fact is mamabear, the issue of repeal wouldn't exist outside of politics. It is entirely political (hence the attempt to get it through in the lame-duck, duh...) and the ramifications are being calculated on a political scale.
As far as discharging soldiers for misbehavior- the military has measured disciplinary procedures for infractions of all levels. The discharged gay soldier in most cases has either been a serial violator of the DADT policy, has a poor service record, or both. Discharge on the grounds of DADT is likely a last resort and in many cases is brought on by the soldier outing himself and requesting the action.
[Edit] Just had an additional thought (ow! Sometimes it hurts! ;-)) Remember a couple of months ago -or whatever it was- that the judge deemed DADT unconsitutional? Remember how excited the gay community was and the number of people that couldn't wait to see a recruiter? Many of these same people hadn't been to a recruiter's office before because they knew the policy; but once it appeared the policy had changed, they were suddenly excited to be patriotic. Seems a bit disingenuous to me...
I could ask an equally
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:49am.
I could ask an equally distant question based on your analogy: If no one from the gay community is wishing to join the military, why change the policy?I'm not saying no one, but everything that I have heard says that this is primarily about protecting people who are already in the military and want to stay there. I think it is seriously disingenuous to assume that anyone who might join after the repeal does it for the wrong reasons. Maybe people just don't like lying. I know I don't. I'd have to think pretty seriously about whether I wanted to go into a service that was supposed to be based on honor, camraderie, and cohesion but would paradoxically require me to lie to and keep secrets from the people I'm supposed to live and die for. Removing that cognitive dissonance would make the decision much more morally palatable. But you assume that anyone making that decision must be making it for the wrong reasons, which is stereotypical. We know for a fact that plenty of discharges were not requested by the soldier themselves! And you've still never presented any evidence other than your assumptions that people discharged must have had other problems. If someone is a problematic soldier and the only way you can get rid of them is through DADT, then the system isn't functioning properly. If someone wants to get out of the military and doesn't care about being discharged honorably, I'm sure there are plenty of ways they can get themselves into trouble. We don't need DADT to serve that purpose!
Yeah, grislybear---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:36pm.
The repeal of DADT wouldn't cause Gays to rush to enlist in the military, just like Proposition 8 being voted down in California (TWICE) didn't have the flamers all up in arms to somehow get a similar amendment, thanks to an appointed, not elected, federal judge, on the ballot in the future, again, and again, and again, or as many times as is required until their desires are met.
The repeal of DADT will just allow the measured influx of GLBT'ers into the military so that they can slowly, but resolutely, work the political magic necessary to require the military to accept their sexual preferences as normal and acceptable.
I see where the top Marine and Admiral on a committee dealing with DADT both have no problem with repeal of DADT, and other top military voices apparently concur that the repeal is, at some point, inevitable.
I don't particularly care, as I won't have to live in the world created by do-gooders like you.
I do hope, though, that I can be somewhere so as to observe the hell dropped on your collective liberal asses as a result of your kind, caring, stupidity.
"It is exceedingly difficult to undo the good that do-gooders do."
MD
We will be a gay army
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:56am.
We will be a gay army marching through the world spreading rainbows and unicorns! All will bow before us! Your doom will come in a rain of glitter and the thunder of deep house.
Really, though, I tink we'll be okay.
No straight guy in his right mind bows before, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 7:45pm.
or anywhere near, a gay man; but I must admit I had a sad vision, picturing the Fighting 69th Rump Rangers - whose motto no doubt would be, rather than "Death before Dishonor", be "Death from Behind", riding forth on their unicorns, spreading not rainbows, but AIDS.
MD
Lovers of group rights
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:26am.
It is amusing to see Jer and hippiebear finally find "religion" and finally care about an organization they otherwise loathe. And why do they suddenly care about it? Why, their mutual love of "group rights".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You are such a twisted
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:51am.
You are such a twisted funhouse mirror! When did Jer or I say we hate the military? Oh that's right! We didn't, you just know we must because we are liberals and you know our deepest, darkest hearts.
I know, I know-- my own words have given me away, stop whining about being mistreated, blah, blah, blah, I'm a dirty little...
Mamabear
Submitted by shawn. on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:58am.
I admit I do not agree with many of your views especially about homosexuality. however this is typical Unsane. He will make up something you said or something he claimed he said, you ask him where you said it or he said it, He will say read it yourself and he has no time to point it out.
He is by far the most overrated debator on this site.
Living in a glass house
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:38pm.
I find it very curious that you would have the audacity to call me an overrated debater. Why?
1) Loser228 presents argument.
2) Another poster presents Loser228 a cogent counter-argument.
3) Loser228 realizes that he cannot face the counter-argument squarely. SO what are his tactics?
a) Personal attacks.
b) Childish, immature name calling. Middle school references to feces and STDs no problem for Loser228. They show he has nothing with which to debate, but Loser228 doesn't care. He considers this highbrow intellectual conversation.
c) Otherwise very angrily lashing out at everybody and anybody for daring to question him.
d) Demonstrate his impatience and his refusal to read by whining endlessly about the length of the post
e) Whining over attempts to converse with him. Never answer Loser228's question with a question...how DARE you try to force him to think and to force him to answer his very own question. Why, that's ADULT behavior!!!
Loser228, any cliche about glass houses will do...and that is even MORE ironic, as you are the self-appointed NB "Hypocrisy Police".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
NOPE
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 1:08am.
Again, I gave points that Canada is important the US. You then decided to make a false accusation...not the cogent one that you claim.
Sorry, I have been done this dance with you for years and just tired of it.
The solutions are simple
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:19pm.
It isn't a false accusation, and the more that you whine that it is only tells me that you lack basic personal integrity.
If you don't want me coming to the conclusions I do about you, the solution is simple: either think about what you type or just stop posting on NB.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
hippiebear strikes again
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:30pm.
This hypocritical, pious whine from a woman who has stated that I obviously have no respect for teachers, even though she cannot find where I said so.
hippiebear, Jer says he hates the military every single time he mentions his party affiliation. And forgive me for daring yet again to actually read your posts and look at what you say and make the fairly reasonable guess that you hate the military. I cannot imagine you have a single cubic millimeter of room in your heart for that which defends this country. Because 99% of those who hold the beliefs you do hold the military in extreme, total contempt.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns, mamabear is a teacher
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:35pm.
Uns, mamabear is a teacher and I have no problem saying I have no respect for her. As my late father used to say, "she doesn't know what she doesn't know". Thrown in with a liberal (pardon my wording) dose of condescension.
On hippiebear
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:45pm.
Very true, rad. Truth be told, she didn't need to tell me she was a teacher for me to not have respect for her. But when she did, she reminded me instantly of those mediocre flunkies given teacher certifications, who among other things, declared I would not get past sixth grade with my handwriting. (I'd still love to show my fifth grade "teacher" my degrees. She would be horrified at reading what the degrees are in...)
I have never seen a poster use so many words to say so little...AND she is convinced of her intellectual superiority to boot! No doubt she has an education "degree"...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Because 99% of those who hold
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:13am.
Because 99% of those who hold the beliefs you do hold the military in extreme, total contempt. You never disappoint! While it might be reasonable to guess, in the absence of other information, that I dislike the military, what you do isn't guessing. It is clinging to stereotypes in complete defiance of all information to the contrary! I'm going to state, definitively, that I respect our armed services and the job that they do. While I don't much like wars, the military does so much more than just kill people. They protect innocent lives, they help people through disasters. They are trained to protect our country, but even when we don't actively need protecting, they are putting their hard-earned skills and talents to use making people safer. They sacrifice their lives, both literally and figuratively, to do an important job, and I respect that. I do not, however, expect that statement to have any bearing on your opinion of whether I respect the military. Go ahead and tell me how I'm lying. You responded perfectly on cue last time I invited you to do your same old thing!Prepare for a surprise
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:23pm.
I am going to surprise you. I think you did something for once that is commendable: you clarified your position. I'll shut up now...except for one little tiny thing...
You see the military not as a means to protect and defend the country NEARLY as much as you do a massive domestic/international aid organization. You consider that aspect to be far more important than the very #1 reason it exists: to break things and kill people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Well, like I said. I don't
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 7:06pm.
Well, like I said. I don't much like wars. I think that "protection" is a more important function for the military than "aggression," and I define protection as encompassing a wider range of activities than just killing people and breaking things, although I recognize that they have to do that to keep us safe sometime too.
Thank you, for taking something I said at face value and not trying to find a way to make it sound nefarious. I appreciate that :)
A nonaggressive military is a defeated military
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:42pm.
Sorry. You cannot have "protection" without "aggression". A nonaggressive military is a defeated military.
And again, you (give the distinct impression) place a premium on the military's aid role above and beyond the #1 job of the military, which is to break things and kill people. The government does not issue me a M9 so I can fill sandbags or direct the filling of sandbags. As Rush Limbaugh has put it, the Left sees the military as the international branch of "Meals on Wheels". You are exhibiting that attitude all too clearly.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane's critical thinking skills plunge to new depths.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 3:32am.
"Jer says he hates the military every single time he mentions his party affiliation."
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/comment/reply/43576/1390000#ixzz17JTr4HEl
There you have it folks: The penetrating insight...the relentless logic...the unassailable deductive reasoning--once again put on full and public display by the feckless boob, Unsane.
That I have never expressed anything other than a profound respect for the military and an enduring admiration for all who have served or now serve is of no consequence. My party affiliation alone--the unforgivable sin of being a Democrat!--negates all such sentiments and indisputably confirms my hatred of the military...
...according to Unsane, that is. What a freakin' idiot.
Jer
Jer?
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 4:00am.
That I have never expressed anything other than a profound respect for the military and an enduring admiration for all who have served or now serve is of no consequence.
Is that you, Jer? Patting yourself on the back? Reminding us of how uniquely and perfectly balanced you are in your views and criticism? You never used to be like this.
/s
- Shy Style
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 4:29am.
I know that you, unlike Unsane, are blessed with sufficient reasoning skills to distinguish between patting oneself on the back and correcting baseless and insulting accusations.
Jer
Nope
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:32pm.
Not baseless nor insulting. It is what it is. Read below.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Actions versus words
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:28pm.
Jer, like it or not, your beloved party despises the military. Therefore, whatever you say is contradicted by your blind support for a political party that holds the military in extreme contempt.
Now, if you want credibility on this issue, you would distance yourself from said organization, or even say something like "I'm a political independent but will typically vote Democrat...and by the way, the Dems I support must be supportive of the military."
But you are a party hack in league with the Democratic party. I really do not know what else you expect me to draw from this.
This is a very simple case where your ACTIONS contradict your WORDS. Praise the military's work and efforts to support and defend the Constitution of the United States all you want. Bottom line, you are part of an organization which holds the military in contempt. That cancels out everything you say on the matter.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And you misconstrue both.
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:23am.
Obviously the habitual posting of preposterous fallacies has succeeded in dulling whatever capacity for rational analysis--of which I, too, was convinced--you once possessed. Your arrogance continues unabated, of course, yet even in that regard my annoyance with your consuming egoism was long ago supplanted by, well...boredom.
That the Democratic party, uniformly and unconditionally, holds the military in "extreme contempt" is a cheap and groundless smear. And the accusation that I am a "party hack who blindly supports the Democratic party"--and its alleged anti-military posture--is a despicable lie, a specious and noxious charge which you know to be false and yet deliberately peddle to assail integrity rather than to fairly and directly address issues.
You likewise know, or should know because I have posted same on more than one occasion and in direct reponse to your comments and queries, that I--although having mostly supported Democratic candidates--have voted for many Republicans and am quite sure I will do so on occasion in future elections. But please answer the following questions, sir: Do you believe military combat veterans (and lifelong Democrats) such as Bob Kerrey, Chuck Robb, Wesley Clark, and Max Cleland hold the military in "extreme contempt"? Did you endorse the opponent of and speak out against Rand Paul who rejects the Patriot Act and would require a declaration of war by Congress before armed intervention by the US [such as in Operation Iraqi Freedom]? I recall your opposition to Ron Paul. Did it extend to his son as well?
Your personal construct of "fictional reality" has become tedious and offensive, Unsane. It's time you based your arguments on fact rather than feelings.
Jer
Just stop already
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 8:12am.
Jer, i am basing my argument on a very nasty fact you are eager to run away from.
You have proudly proclaimed that you are a registered Democrat.
Therefore, you are in league with people like Hary Reid, who gleefully proclaimed "The war (in Iraq) is lost", not caring at all that we had a few thousand troops deployed there.
How about Dick Durbin proclaiming the military to be a cross between the NKVD and the Nazis on the floor of the Senate?
How about THIS very nasty fact? I was briefed that, when deployed, many Congressmen - Reps and Sens - liked to visit the troops. And you didn't need to know who they were to determing party affiliation. One side asked all sorts of questions relating to the mission, were the troops getting what they needed, what could be done to make life better for the troops, etc. The other side kept talking about how much things sucked and would ask nothing else other than "I bet you really want to go home! Don't you want to go home?" Gee, guess who was who?
Jer, your ACTIONS - your being in league with the Democratic party - negate your WORDS. YOU are happily in league with those who hold the military in extreme, total contempt. Don't get all pissed off at me. You need to go take a good hard stare at that guy you see in the mirror when you are shaving/brushing your teeth, or whatever. If anything, get pissed off at him. Quit blaming me for your actions and the consequences thereof.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Israel
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:34am.
Another thing you do not consider in your rush to fight for group rights is Israel's precarious existence.
It has 7 million people in a nation the size of NJ, and is bordered by nations and peoples that are utterly hostile to its very existence. Hence, they must conscript, and they must do things other countries wouldn't dream of doing.
This would naturally be lost on you, but in your world, group rights trump individual ones.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
they must do things other
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:58am.
they must do things other countries wouldn't dream of doing.Other countries wouldn't dream of letting gays serve openly in the military? Are you sure about that?
Hippiebear...
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:00am.
Look, I realize the only people you care about in the world are gays. You will never stopp so low as to defend your country or protect your town's property, but my Shahinshah, you will FIGHT and DIE for gays. I get that.
But for the love of the Shahinshah DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR FREAKING TUNNEL VISION.
Read the entire post. Yes, I am aware that other countries' militaries allow gays to serve. But once again you demonstrate you don't know a damn thing about matters military. Some countries have conscription. Some don't. Some allow certaing groups to people to serve and others are more all-inclusive.
My concern about gays in the military have to do with something beyond your comprehension called "logistics". Even if your hated policy were to end tomorrow, we would HAVE to take their needs into consideration if it happened.
You apparently have zero clue, and care even less, how strictly regulated relations with women are in the military. When I deployed, I faced all sorts of restrictions. For instance, I could not ENTER a woman's living space. Conversely, no woman could enter MY living space. If that were to happen, we would have faced Article XVs. That's mere VISITATION. Not anything else less innocent. VISITATION.
You seriously do not think things like this would happen with gays? Seriously? They would HAVE to, and it would impact all sorts of things in the military, to include logistics.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
If it was workable for women,
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:14am.
If it was workable for women, why won't it be workable for gays?
You clearly have no clue about this aspect of life.
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:31pm.
More proof, as if I needed any, that the only group of people in the world you remotely care about are gays.
And in many cases, it STILL isn't workable for women. Why do you think relations with women are so heavily regulated in the military? Why do you think there are still career fields in the military that are off-limits to women?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
And in many cases, it STILL
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 8:54pm.
And in many cases, it STILL isn't workable for women. Why do you think relations with women are so heavily regulated in the military? Why do you think there are still career fields in the military that are off-limits to women?The question isn't "is it hard to do the right thing?" The question is: "Is it worth it?" So would you rather we go back to not allowing women to serve, based on the complications that are involved and the fact that the effort to integrate them into the military hasn't been entirely successful? Or do you think it is a good thing that we've given women more opportunities to serve their country?
Try again
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:50pm.
It depends. I think the idea of women serving on submarines, for instance, is a stupid idea. It began this year and I think it is simply a recipe for disaster. UNLESS the ENTIRE CREW is female.
I can make a tight argument that you are doing here what you so often accuse me of doing. Do I like the idea of women serving their country? Depends. It depends on conditions and circumstances. I don't doubt the ability or desire of women when it comes to serivng their country. But here is the difference between you and me (other than the obvious fact that I have served and am a veteran and you are not). You see the military as a place to tinker endlessly and socially experiment. I see it as an institution which is designed to break things and kill people in order to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Thus, I am suspicious of actions or activities that threaten to cause a ripple in this capability.
So, let's try answering a basic question. Why do you think relations with women are so heavily regulated in the military? (Do you know, for instance, adultery is a punishable offense under the UCMJ?) Why do you think there are still career fields in the military that are off-limits to women?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Adding women, the same way
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:38pm.
Adding women, the same way that "adding" gays will, creates complications. I think (and some feminists would kill me for saying this) that women have different talents than men. I have a hard time envisioning any organization, including one whose primary purpose is killing people and breaking things, that wouldn't benefit from the inclusion of both men and women.
But the potential for sexual relationships makes things more complicated, and multiplies the ways that people can get themselves into trouble. We need rules to try to limit the harm done by increased complication. We'll need rules if gays are allowed to serve openly as well. Therefore, I think integration of women has been slow because we are working out the kinks. We need to figure out how to integrate them into every part of the military, and if there are places they really don't belong, I'm okay with that as long as there is a clear and compelling reason-- not just, say, a misguided sense of chivalry!
I also think that we should integrate gays into the military slowly. That doesn't mean a "trial" basis, because you obviously can't rehide gay people who have come out into the open. But starting with branches and units where there is the least concern, we let the system work out the kinks and let people who are still resistant see gay people serving openly and not turning the military into a giant pride float. That may limit the opportunities for gays, say for transfering, but as long as we are clear about the rules and the boundaries, it is still a step forward. And then we keep adding opportunities as they become feasible.
The only thing that stops me from advocating slow integration is the worry that most republicans aren't on board. If Obama doesn't cement something now and loses the next election, then everything could get erased by a republican administration. I think it's sad that that means the only choices are don't move forward at all or move forward way too fast, but I don't see a lot of people here, as my main window into the conservative mindset, relaxing their condemnation of gays.
So much to say so little
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 10:48pm.
I simply have never seen a poster dedicated to using so many words to say so very little.
But all throughout this post you show over and over and over again that you do not grasp the military at all. And you absolutely do not want to. Worse, the ONLY purpose the military serves in your mind, methinks, is nothing more that your personal social experimental laboratory.
hippiebear, relations between men and women are very strictly regulated, and this presents a complication in many instances. It creates a great deal of drama that I have witnessed up close and personal (imagine that!). And guess what? Having gays are only going to provide a great deal MORE complication. I like to minimize complications because the side with the fewest internal complications normally wins.
You simply do not get, nor want to understand, the massive logistical issues, legal issues, and discipline problems that are going to arise from your cause. But as if you care. The military upsets you when it is "aggressive". You wish it were nothing more than the internatonal branch of "Meals on Wheels".
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
But all throughout this post
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 12/08/2010 - 10:03am.
But all throughout this post you show over and over and over again that you do not grasp the military at all. And you absolutely do not want to.Maybe you should think about using some more words and actually explaining what you mean. Because you follow this statement with two points that are exactly what I made in my post. Adding women complicated things, adding gay people will complicate things as well. That's exactly what I said! You claim that I don't understand the military, but you've added nothing to my answer to your question. What is it that I don't undertstand? I said that I thought it was worth the complication. I asked you, earlier, if you thought it was worth it. You have both failed to answer my question and failed to explain why my answer to your question was so unsatisfactory. I think, despite your brief moment of magnanimity earlier, that you just like having an excuse to crow about how much more you know about the military (something I've never denied) and call me ignorant. You should think about letting your better nature have more air time!
Gee...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 10:28pm.
I don't know, hippiebear. Maybe the fact that you seem to have a very hard time grappling with the nasty fact that the #1 concern of the military is to break things and kill people?
Maybe because you fail, over and over again, to acknowledge the complications that will arise and why they will arise.
Maybe it is the post later on down the thread where you indicate that you see the military as just another humdrum employer like an architectural firm or a construction company.
It's not that I have an excuse to crow about my knowing more about the military than you do - hell, I don't particularly get any satisfaction out of it - it's just a fact and you constantly demonstrate this fact. Nor do I see much effort on your part to actually ask questions of me and other vets on NB for their thoughts on the matter, for it is they and those that might still be serving along with them, that will have to deal with the policy you are talking about endlessly as if it is just a silly academic exercise to try out in your social experimentation lab.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wrong Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:29pm.
What is the Black agenda? What is the woman aganda? The gay agenda -as it relates to the military and serving openly- wholly revolves around a counter-culture, anti-establishment position. This is counter-productive, and distructive to the military way of life. Blacks and women do not share that perspective. Gays who will only serve openly have placed their personal agenda over that of the service's and that -by definition- makes them unfit to serve.
This would be like immigrants who will only serve if they're allowed to speak only in their language. This would be like Vegans who would only serve if the chow halls refused to serve meat. This would be like environmentalists who would only serve if we converted all of our tanks to solar power. These agendas are detrimental to the role of the Armed Forces. Being black or female is not.
I could be, BK, and so could you.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:11pm.
http://Gays who will only serve openly have placed their personal agenda over that of the service's and that -by definition- makes them unfit to serve.
And exactly how do you know this? Have the goals of this "agenda" been published somewhere? Is there a "Gay Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines Manifesto" which enumerates their demands--including the subordination of military objectives to their personal aggrandizement? What you posit as established fact is simply conjecture and would only "by definition make them unfit to serve" in the event your speculation was borne out by future events.
You responded to MidAmerica listing several potentially disruptive actions that would be detrimental to service cohesiveness and discipline. Those very same objections would have been applicable to blacks and women for the very same reasons.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:17pm.
Read my comment from 8:05. The agenda is spelled out there and it is not based on some hypothetical.
By the way, the number of Article 31's increased dramatically in the USMC after women began cohabitating with men in the barracks.
The agenda is spelled out
Submitted by mamabear on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:37pm.
The agenda is spelled out there and it is not based on some hypothetical.If it isn't a hypothetical, you must have some real evidence gathered to justify speaking so authoritatively about what other people really think and want. Could we see that evidence? If you've just discussed the issue with lots of gay people, could you summarize what you learned from them? I'm just curious, because apparently my friends are keeping me in the dark!
Just go ahead and base the Gay/political agenda for the---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:44pm.
military on the same criteria the GLBT'ers are using for same sex marriage.
Different issue, same tactics.
MD
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:49pm.
The agenda: (as delineated in my comment from 8:05pm)
"They are taking a political position and only consenting to serve in an all-volunteer force if they can do so in the manner in which they feel most comfortable.
"Serving in the Marine Corps -which is my only frame of reference- isn't about standing out in the crowd. It starts the moment you get off the bus on Parris Island with those yellow footprints. We were all peices of sh!t, whether we were black, white, hispanic, asian, male or female. We were all the same. In fact in the USMC, we were all green. But for homosexuals who'll only serve openly, there will be green recruits on those footprints AND gay ones. A separate group that stands out from the rest. Serving openly means serving in a manner that highlights, draws attention to your status as a homosexual. You're different and the only way you'll put on the uniform is if everyone knows it. That's anti-evrything (sic) the military stands for."
Do you deny any of the above?
Yes, but what I asked is how
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:01am.
Yes, but what I asked is how you know. You feel like your opinion on military issues is valid and should be given weight because of your personal, professional experience in the military, right? And I think most people agree that we should give informed opinions more weight than others. So what experience or research lets you speak authoritatively on what gay people want or how they plan to behave?
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 7:35pm.
How do I know what? That gays have an agenda regarding the US Military? Is that a serious question?
I have no experience to speak authoritatively on what gay people want or how they plan to behave. But you're doing it again, mamabear. "Gay people" implies all of them. So let me try to be as clear as I can possibly be:
Anyone discharged from the any one of the US Armed Forces under a condition other than honorable and not medically related, has been so for disciplinary reasons. There are a series of disciplinary measures available to NCO's, SNCO's and CO's with increasingly stringent punishment which are used routinely by all of the services. In the USMC, we would employ a procedure called Office Hours for any Marine that could not show improvement under the more closely held measures issued by NCO's and SNCO's. Office Hours become part of your SRB and essentially amount to a trial with the Battalion CO as Judge. After enough incidents, discharge may be the only option left for a Marine who continues to fail at his MOS or has become a detriment to the functionality or cohesion of the unit. I repeat: after enough incidents, discharge may be the only option left for a Marine who continues to fail at his MOS or has become a detriment to the functionality or cohesion of the unit. You'll note that to this point I have not mentioned anything about homosexuals.
We've all heard and read countless stories from active service members and veterans about how they knew a few people in their unit were gay. "Yeah, I knew of one guy, but I never had any problems with him. He did his job just like the rest of us," is pretty typical for these anecdotes. So, using that as research, I would conclude that there are, in fact, gay people serving actively in our Armed Forces. I would also conclude that if others know they are gay, then they're in effect, serving openly. Maybe not in the stereotypical sense, but either the agenda, as I call it, is to allow gays to serve openly in the stereotypical sense, or it is to allow gays to serve in the status quo. It seems to me that since they're trying to change the status quo it is likely the former and not the latter.
It seems logical that soldiers currently known to be gay and serving honorably in combat or in garrison, are doing so without a serious threat of discharge. I must also assume that most of those who have been discharged, must have failed either at their ability to effectively soldier, or they have chosen to remove themselves from the service for personal reasons. In fact, since I could not have chosen to remove myself from the USMC prior to the expiration of my contract, it seems that gays have a distinct advantage; they can serve as everyone else does, or if they decide they don't like the rigors of military service, they can out themselves and ask for a discharge.
As for the cognitive dissonance you mentioned above; that you'd have to decide if you wanted to serve under conditions that made you uncomfortable, -pardon my french but, no effin sh!t!!! It is an all volunteer force and EVERY SINGLE ENLISTEE OR OFFICER CANDIDATE must make that EXACT SAME DECISION! Sorry for yelling- I'm just amazed that this hadn't dawned on you.
I understand that as a liberal, you have this unnerving desire to try and make everything fair for everyone, but it just doesn't work in this case. There's nothing fair about serving in the USMC. You're paid squat. You're pushed to your physical and mental limits from the moment you get off the bus on PI. You're stripped of your identity and molded into what the Corps wants you to be; a warrior. Trained to go over that hill and into the face of overwhelming fire for no other reason than because you love your country and someone with more stripes or metal on their collar just told you to. And you do it without question or pre-condition. If you can't make THAT commitment, the rest is immaterial; you are unfit to serve in my Beloved Corps.
You are making so many
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 10:06pm.
You are making so many assumptions here, and while I'm glad that you realize how unfounded they are, I'm surprised that that doesn't stop you from clinging to them.
What you are forgetting about is the "don't ask" part of the policy. Some gays are successfully serving in the military and getting along with their fellow soldiers, and in that case, no one asks if they are gay. But if something happens that makes their orientation impossible to ignore any longer, the military has to investigate and discharge them-- they won't ask, and it really sounds like most of the time they don't want it to be their problem, but they aren't allowed to look the other way when someone is outed.
The fact that this doesn't happen to everyone is not "research" that proves that it can't happen to anyone! We know for a fact that people are discharged against their will, because those are the people we hear about when the repeal is discussed. So if they should have been discharged for other crimes, then they should have been discharged for those crimes. You just detailed how that is supposed to work. Under the system you described, no one should be discharged for being gay because they couldn't run fast enough or show up on time or handle a weapon safely. Whatever the actual reason is, it should be the actual reason used.
Soldiers currently serving who can't hide their identity from people are not serving "safely." They are one phone call away from discharge, and doing their job well doesn't save them from it. And while I recognize that we have a volunteer force and that there are unpleasant aspects of military service, there is a difference between the sacrifices that everyone in the service has to make and telling a small subset of those people that they have to be dishonest to serve. I'm surprised you don't recognize the difference between things that are hard but shared and things that affect honor, loyalty, and security.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:11pm.
You can circle around this all you want but the fact is, if you don't like what the military has to offer, you don't have -nor are you obligated to join.
The military has to investigate? Then how are there gays serving now? Completely bogus argument. As is the lying argument. You can only lie if you open your mouth. The policy is shut up and join if you'd like. And if you have an aversion to lying about your sexuality, don't join. No one has the right to wear camoflage.
But, as strongly as I feel about this subject, I can't go on trying to convince you of the perils of altering the policy. You have no military experience, and I presume you're not gay, so I believe you come at this subject completely as an ideologue. You can chose to believe those who serve, or those who have a political agenda; I suspect you'll stick with your personal preference of those two choices. Frankly, I'm tired of countering your "but the gay people I've heard of..." arguments with fact -even if you wish to deem it otherwise based upon...well... absolutely nothing of substance. Not everyone is fit to serve- it makes them no less important or significant than any other. If your agenda is to go against the grain, your place is not in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Maybe you should read this. And as long as you're clicking, you may want to check this out; you're getting dangerously close on this subject. Good luck with the effort to degrade our military.
bk, love the second
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:31pm.
bk, love the second link.
I guess we now need to rescind the testing that goes along with the military. It's no longer about being fit to serve and do the job necessary, it's about allowing people to join if they want to, regardless of the effect on how the military functions.
/sarc off
nice work bkeyser
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:08am.
You have the freaking Patience of Job to deal with hippiebear and her pontificating on what she knows absolutely nothing about. She is typical of those who simply refuse to understand that at its heart, the military is about preparing to do a very terrible thing when it is absolutely necessary to do so: namely, to break things and kill people.
Unless you are a psychopath, to do such things is a very unnatural act. Therefore, to do so, as you aptly describe, takes not only a great deal of training but a great deal of intense discipline. Anything that causes a ripple in that discipline is something to be dampened at any and all costs, as the stakes in the military world are too high.
In the end, there is the civilian world, and there is the military, and hippiebear and too many others refuse to grasp that.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The military has to
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 10:40am.
The military has to investigate? Then how are there gays serving now?What is confusing about this? They don't ask. That is half of the damn policy. If someone tells, then they have to investigate. Gays serving now haven't been outed, either by their own mistakes or someone who doesn't like them. Seriously, how is this confusing?
You shouldn't be so high and mighty about the strength of my arguments-- you speak as though you have inside knowledge of the gay agenda, when really it is just based on false premises and a really poor understanding of logic. "Some people are still there, so they must all be okay," "because they are all okay, they must want special treatment," "because the ones there are okay, the ones who aren't must be bad people." You say your argument "isn't a hypothetical," and then when challenged to provide actual evidence, explain how it is entirely hypothetical! An extended set of assumptions taken far beyond their logical implications.
But hey, turning the attention away from the strength of your argument and onto mine is precisely the right move here-- the military may not teach critical thinking, but apparently someone taught you to debate! A couple of sympathetic posts from other conservatives about how annoying I am, and no one will notice that your arguments were falling apart under their own weight.
Just in case you want to continue, you still have not: --Presented any evidence that gay people want what you think they want from the military, or made any statements that back up your claim that your opinion on the matter is more than just speculation. --Explained why we need DADT to discharge people who should have been discharged for other failures.And what, Jer, would those
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:32pm.
And what, Jer, would those "appropriate remedies" be?
Disciplinary action,
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:47pm.
Disciplinary action, individual discharges, or, if necessary, repeal of the policy.
Jer
LOL!!
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:27pm.
You got nothing, Jer.
None of those things is going to solve the problems arising out of someone who has been given the "right" to assert their sexual orientation exercising those "rights" to the detriment of military order and discipline.
"Repeal of the policy"? LMAO! Even you can't really believe that would ever happen.
The military is going to be so tied up in discrimination charges that they won't be able to do a fricking thing.
26CX
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:54pm.
Unless it were ruled a constitutional right--in which case the issue would become moot--I don't see why the policy couldn't be instituted on a conditional or trial basis and subsequently revoked if shown to be an objective detriment.
(As an aside, you sometimes--certainly not always--have an unappealing tendency to quickly convert dialogue into derision. Why not take a page out of the BKeyser or theduck6 handbook?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:09pm.
Do you honestly believe that you could tell people that DADT is being repealed on a trial basis and expect them to buy it? I can't see how there's any going back after that. Maybe there's some example of something like that being done in the past, but I can't think of one off hand.
Can you think of any applicable examples?
I'm going to set aside your aside except to point out that you forgot the close parenthesis.
26CX---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:43pm.
Rule 16.202(c), subsection A-102, of The NewsBusters Code of Ethics (not to be confused with the Terms of Agreement - TOA), states:
"Anyone accused of having an unappealing tendency to quickly convert dialogue into derision, shall be promptly investigated, and if the results of said investigation prove, with a certifiable preponderance of evidence, that the accuser does indeed have said tendency, if the accused is avowedly conservative, and the sniveling complainer - strike that - the accuser, is a liberal, the accused is hereby congratulated for a job well done!!"
Attica! Attica!! Attica!!!
(h/t Al Pacino - "Dog Day Afternoon" - an historic cinematic example of an individual who placed himself in jeopardy, and then squawked when his situation became ludicrous because it was tenuous, at best)
MD
argument may have been made
Submitted by theduck6 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:55pm.
but I can also tell you for far too long the mere mention of a claim of racism caused very good commanders to let marginal soldiers and outright wastes of OD green skate along contributing nothing to the unit while someone else ahd to make up for their non-productivity. I was there and it did happen. Been out for a little while now so it is posible the troops aren't as put off by this but Jon douchebag Stewart is not the person I want to hear a damned word on this subject from.
Just skate along?
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 3:39am.
I watched totally unqualified people get promoted beyond their abilities, which was usually beyond PFC. And, you're absolutely right, duck, someone else, or two someone else's had to pick up their slack..... Hell, there were no-go zones, for white soldiers, in Frankfurt, Schweinfurt, Munich and other cities all over Germany when I was in. And, even though there was a curfew for soldiers back when I served, some people apparently had no problems violating it. Others did, and I can see how that will play out now. There will be rules, and then, there will be "rules".
Why has no one mentioned that 2/3 of the combat Marines and almost 2/3's of the Army's combat arms said this would have a bad effect on morale, and unit cohesion? Because it doesn't fit the narrative of what the CJCS and Gates want?
Nice but weak, Jer
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:54pm.
Your premise is soooooooooooooo flawed from the git go. Can I tell if one is black or a female?
No more questions your honor.
IF you(and sincerely doubt it) are a lawyer, then you must be one of those advertising on Tv. God help ANY OF YOUR CLIENTS!
G
Logistics
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:20am.
One word, and it will blow your mind:
Logistics.
Trust me. You don't understand, and refuse to understand, economics. You sure as all hell are not going to understand logistics if I have to draw a picture.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
mandrake?
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:48pm.
The US Armed Forces employ zero homosexuals?
Who knew?
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:50pm.
If that's the case, WTH is all of this caterwauling about, BK?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sorry, I forgot to hit the
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:53pm.
Sorry, I forgot to hit the sarcasm buttton.;)
Isn't it below your dumbass
Submitted by bretzysdude on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:50pm.
Isn't it below your dumbass button?
bd, Mandrake doesn't have a dumbass button
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:12pm.
LOL - His dumbass is hardwired in - all permanent like, so it's on at all times.
-Dave.
Vote for the American in November
Hey, that would be mandork to you
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 9:28pm.
Show some respect for tradition will ya.
I defer to the Military's
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:45pm.
I defer to the Military's judgement on this one.
I'd love to see Jon Stewart in a North Vietnamese POW Cage....
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:44pm.
....for an hour.
And then listen to him bitch and moan about John McCain.
That's it, I'm going to stop.
STFU, Jon Stewart.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
LOL, Let's not play ...
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 7:48pm.
Behavioral addicts want to be recognized as a species.
Ever Notice
Submitted by Chupacabra on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:00pm.
How all these people who want to tell us what our opinion should be on DADT have never served in the military and certainly have never served in a combat arms Unit?
Let's be fair for a moment.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:01pm.
Let's be fair for a moment. Jon Stewart is not using a whiney voice, but a droopy voice when imitating Joe Liebernmann. There's nothing whiney about Droopy Dog. He's just a little...droopy.
When this sissified
Submitted by celator on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:08pm.
When this sissified "comedian" flies a few fighter missions over enemy territory, or successfully leads a group of Marines through a jihadist infested slum in Afghanistan, or gets beaten every day for months as a POW, or leads an Army squad toward the rim summit at the Punchbowl (Korea) while ChiCom mortars are exploding all around them, then he should keep his mouth zipped. He isn't worthy to even THINK about anything remotely military, let alone tell "jokes" about military men and women.
John McCain and Jon Stewart:
Submitted by liberalsarefunny on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:29pm.
John McCain and Jon Stewart: Man and boy.......
There is no legal definition
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:45pm.
There is no legal definition or proof of who is a Gay and who is not. Any person can engage in homosexual behavior. So therefore Gays do not exist as a distinct legal class.I agree with Stewart. We
Submitted by jdhawk on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 8:48pm.
I agree with Stewart. We ought to repeal DADT, but proscribe LGBT from the military altogether. McCain is trying to take the namby pamby "can't we all just get along" stance that he usually takes and that lost him the presidential election. He wasn't the "goat" of his class at Annapolis for grins (actually 6th from the bottom of a class of 900).
You can't bargain with liberals. If you give them an inch, they will be back for the rest of the mile.
For example, we didn't get to socialized medicine from the bill past in the spring. We have been incrementally moving toward it since WWII.
We are involved in two wars. Let's do everything we can to win on the battlefield and get our men and women back home. Stop this crap; stop DADT; proscribe LGBT from the military altogether.
Know what makes me sad Mr Stewart?
Submitted by theduck6 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:00pm.
YOU DO!!! Why don't we chug over to namby pamby land and see if we can ferret out a subject where you have an ounce of gravitas, Ya Jackwagon!!!
Tissue?
Crybaby!
lol
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:01pm.
lol
The War For Decency Is Never Over
Submitted by DaMama on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:03pm.
Radical homosexuals want to force every man, woman and child, regardless of their faith, beliefs and ideals, to look at homosexuality as normal. It is not a normal lifestyle. It never has been and it never will be, no matter how much they push their perversions in our face.
The War for what is good, right and decent is never over. As a parent, I will fight with all my might to make sure that my kids are not forced into thinking that this lifestyle choice is normal.
What time period are you
Submitted by pratsha45 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:38pm.
What time period are you from? the 1600's? You're cleary a major bigot and it's views like this that make conservatives look bad to mainstream Americans. A cursory glance at a history book may enlighten you to the fact that gays have been around for thousands of years - long before your beloved Jesus was around - and you need to respect that fact.
It really must be nice to have been born straight - I wonder if you'd be spewing that same bile if you happened to be gay, probably not. Lastly, I was in the military four months ago and there were plenty of gay folks around doing their jobs and not hurting anyone....for the love of Pete grow up.
As far as this goes, A
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:46pm.
As far as this goes,
A cursory glance at a history book may enlighten you to the fact that gays have been around for thousands of years - long before your beloved Jesus was around - and you need to respect that fact.No, not really. You cannot tell us who or what to respect. And when something violates our moral code it's extremely repugnant for you to try to force your beliefs on us.
pratsha45
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:49pm.
I asked you this before and you didn't reply: What branch were you in? What was your rank? What was your MOS?
Since you're not very
Submitted by bretzysdude on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 9:53pm.
Since you're not very respectful either (noting the ultra-sarcastic "beloved Jesus" comment), what's your point?
A Major bigot----
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:56pm.
would be the bigot between a Captain bigot and a Lieutenant Colonel bigot, right, pratfall?
Your General Bigot view of what views make conservatives look bad to mainstream America is laughable.
Conservatives are mainstream America.
Why the bad language? Can't a person just glance at history without cursing it? ( /sar. )
I would point out that if there were only Gays, there would be no reproducing, therefore, no history. Curses, indeed.
Knocking Jesus. My goodness, are you a Muslim in addition to being a poofter?
I thought Islam frowned on homosexuals?
Oh excuse me; Islam doesn't make frivolous demands on gays, either in their para-military/guerilla terrorist forces or in countries where Islam holds sway, they just behead them upon the outing of the gay's.
Out the gay, off his head.
Try respecting that, you fool. ( not /sar. )
I notice you do not comment on the bile spewed by militant GLBT'ers.
You seem to want things your way, like they do.
You have been asked twice now about the military affiliation you allude to, without providing an answer.
As your "military speak" seems a bit off kilter, I ask the question : In which branch of the military did you serve? Where? For what nation, and for how long?
That might seem a bit personal, but no more so than your calling a respected poster here at NB's a "major bigot", who, you insist, should ( which I find hysterical, given the nasty tenor of your post), "--for the love of Pete, grow up."
A plant, or a troll, who states they are conservative, hired to provide comic relief on an NB thread.
That's a first.
Not the comedic part, as I am sure that is unintentional.
Still funny, though.
MD
That Is Correct
Submitted by DaMama on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:51pm.
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time. Sodom and Gomorrah comes to mind. They didn't end up too well.
The Greco/Roman empire was destroyed from the inside out because of its debauchery. The society became so entrenched in it's sexual immorality (both hetero and homosexual) that it brought down what was once a great civilization.
And "gay" is a misnomer. I've counseled many in the last 25 years, and the vast majority of homosexuals are not happy at all.
I have neighbors who are homosexual. We are friends. They live quietly in the neighborhood as do the rest of us. They have no radical agenda, don't force their lifestyle on us or try to make me change how I raise my kids about homosexuality or the truths of the lifestyle. Homosexuals have a higher than average suicide rate. They also are 4x more likely to contract STD's. They are 3x more likely to develop colo/rectal cancer. Any anatomy class will prove that the rectal area is not made for intercourse. The sphincter muscle is only meant to go one direction - out. Whereas the vaginal muscles, the second strongest muscle after the tongue, is meant to withstand pressure from both intercourse and childbirth.
My neighbor just had a colonostomy. He now wears an ostomy bag. And yes, it was a result of his homosexual lifestyle.
It has nothing to do with growing up. It has to do with the facts and the truth. I'm sorry if it offends you.
Logically impaired
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:40am.
Not only are you most likely lying about being in the military, and definitely lying about being conservative, you are horrifically logically impaired.
Not allowing gays to openly serve is not bigotry. Pure and simple. I don't think it is a good idea just from a logistical standpoint alone. But that's something that not even some in the military can grasp.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh prancer45. You lie.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:46am.
Slipping on some dog poo and falling into the Marine Corp Recruiting Station doorway at Berkely while you were out protesting with Code Pink hardly qualifies as being in the military
Man up and tell us what you did liar..
oops, doubles
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:02pm.
wi-fi issues
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:06pm.
sorry
again...
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:07pm.
geez
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:03pm.
Hey, Stewie
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:39pm.
and ALL you STUPID libs.....what part of "civil law" vs. military law don't you understand? Nothing more....
G
Dont hit Save
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 10:44pm.
Anymore
Thanks
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:10pm.
Mr 18 weeks and counting....I'm having some computer issues. So save it. Been here quite a long time and haven't had this before.
G
Wow,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:16pm.
Your wound up pretty tight, aint ya.
BTW this aint a union shop, siniority dont mean squat
Boudin*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 12/03/2010 - 11:25pm.
Good one!
LOL
I have changed my mind. I will support the repeal of DADT.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:52am.
Just as soon as I see the leaders of all the major gay rights/pride/whathaveyou groups in front of Congress saying they support a/the war a Republican President got us in to.
In other words, it will be a cold day in hell before that trade off comes.
Liberals/Gays don't want the military to win the wars the United States fights but yeah, they want homosexuals to have the right to cut & run along with everyone else.
No agenda here. Move along.
"McCain's like one of them
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 3:37am.
"McCain's like one of them Japanese soldiers living on Okinawa in 1949, still fighting because he doesn't realize the war ended a long time ago"
No Mr. Stewart, John McCain was like one of those Vietnam War POW patriots that refused to trade his release from prison and torture, for his honor and commitment to his country and fellow servicemen.
Does anyone think that Jon Stewart would be willing to suffer stabbing, broken bones, and years of torture in support of his country's honor? More likely, he would slink off to Canada at the first sign of personal danger.
As for gays in the military, Mr. Stewart is akin to the gay soldier Pfc. Bradley Manning. Willing to sell out his country, and hopefully become a MSM darling, because he felt there would be no repercussions in the current PC political environment.
Pfc.Manning
Submitted by ripper58 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 7:10am.
should be shot. SOS Clinton should resign and gays should not openly serve in the military.Lets bring back the draft (or mandatory service for 2 yrs.) and see how fast the gay liberation front sues the Gov. to avoid it.
(No subject)
Submitted by ripper58 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 7:11am.
curse that "save" button!!!!!
Stewart. a liberal comedian
Submitted by Cowboy on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 8:10am.
Stewart. a liberal comedian of the Comedy Channel, never served a day in actual service to his country.
Maybe Stewart will apologize, the same way he did with comments about Truman...
All this is about is
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:10am.
All this is about is posturing by what's left of the democrat's in Wasington by their propaganda surrogates in the lame street media.
The dirty little not really a secret anymore is that Obama himself along with the democrats couldn't care less about the gays in this country, unless of course there is an election 6 months in the future.
The democrat majority could have very easily voted to repeal DADT ( if they truely had the votes ) contingent on sign off from the Military.
They are now only making noise to cover the facts and falsely push blame off on the Republicans. I don't believe the gay community is buying in and Obama will pay dearly in 2012.
Barack_Must_Go.....
Why should there be a penalty?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 12:21pm.
You didn't pay a penalty for getting banned. You were back within days.
And what is with your obsession with the President? You use him in your name. Your every post is about him or his ass. EVERY SINGLE POST. Do we have to report you to the Secret Service? There are other people on the planet. You might have noticed here in this blog, it was about Jon Stewart and Senator McCain and here you are whining about Barack Obama AGAIN.
We get it. You have a some kind of sick obsession with scat and the President.
QUIT SUBJECTING US TO YOUR LOVE/HATE OBSESSIONS FREAKSHOW.
Braaaaccckkkk Barack Obama's ass. Skwaaaaaaawwwwkkk. Barack Obama's ass. Braaaaaaackkkk Barack Obama's ass.
SHUT UP.
I was not banned. I don't
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 2:34pm.
I was not banned. I don't know where you got that idea from.
Also speaking of ass.....have you looked in the mirror lately?
Barack_Must_Go.....
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 2:45pm.
You threw me off the case with that denial. Wowzee you are smarties. I don't know where I got that whole idea from.
Unworthy
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 11:13am.
Stewart isnt worthy enough to get on his knees and tie McCain's shoes. When Stewart stands up to the enemy under the same conditions McCain did, I'll retract my statement.
This was pretty funny
Submitted by wiwf on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 1:03pm.
This was pretty funnyRadical gays aren't
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 4:28pm.
Radical gays aren't interested in beefing up the military with competent soldiers, but in instituting actions they can later use to tear down the institution. They are anti military to the core, and the fact they are supporting this policy is a sure sign that they believe it will result in a civil war in the military and to a decrease in military effectiveness (plus gazillions of editorials decrying the military when gay members begin abusing their underlings (see Tailhook for details), without adequate supervision or penalties being imposed by the Brass due to pc culture proscriptions).
Second, this isn't about liking or disliking gays, Mr. Stewart, but what is best for military operations and personnel. One can love pre-teens, but not want them conducting surgery or driving motor vehicles. One can love gays, but think it's inappropriate to place them in highly regimented single sex organizations, where they would have power to subordinate persons under their control.
gay
Submitted by 2Slo on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 7:38pm.
So at last, we get to the military where every one is supposed to be on equal ground. Shaved head, like uniforms, you get the idea. Now we create a special class, it ain’t gonna work buba. The military is not a democracy and one takes an oath admitting to that fact in order to join. Sounds to me like you’re going to be penalized for not being gay.
By this point, Stewart has
Submitted by RogerCfromSD on Sat, 12/04/2010 - 8:58pm.
By this point, Stewart has revealed himself to be an anti-American douchbag.
I simply don't give a rat's ass what he has to say. About anything.
Enlisted Only
Submitted by Bronco46 on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 12:58pm.
While this question can be discussed by civilians; they have a right to an opinion since like a------s everyone has one. But only the men actually in the military should be the one's to decide. And I would not allow officers a vote. Only the enlisted have to live with this decision. Most officers have privacy and separate quarters. This involves a soldiers right to choose and just as abortion is a decision for woman to make; so should this be a decision made only by those affected. As a veteran myself I can say with some knowledge I wouldn't have wanted this decision made by civilians or officers.
And shame on Jon Stewart for his comparison of John McCain to japanese soldier! Jon McCain is more then a war hero! He model for the kind of character a real man should have. Never mind that he was a skilled aviator and fought for his country, or that endured as POW for so long. The amazing character he display when he was offered release from the camp he was held in (because he was the son of a famous admiral) but turned it down unless all the men in that camp could go home (especially those that been there longer then he).
I don't always like his votes in the senate, and I didn't appreciate his close association with Ted Kennedy. But, I have deep respect for his character and courage of his convictions.
And he should never be included in this kind of specious comparison. And John Stewart should be chastised for making it. But knowing the media, and 99% of hollywood no will be bringing him up short on this one.
mamabear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 5:02pm.
[I didn't reply directly due to the column width.]
So it is your contention that since the policy is "Don't Ask" and there are known homosexuals serving, then each one is either currently -or on the waiting list to "be investigated"? Is it also your contention that why I may be able to swindle some people with my typing skills, I'm really just some bumbling, idiot bigot with no real knowledge to back up my typed words?
Maybe this is where our logic differs. Having served in a B-Billet in the Military Police field, and taken part in some specialized training in conjunction with members of the NIS, DIS, and Marine SRT, I have some idea how the investigative arm of the military operates. Granted, it's surely somewhat strengthened since 9/11, but you can be assured that the effort to investigate reported homosexuals is not a high priority. How do I know this? Because there simply aren't the resources available given the nature of the threats against us. So, knowing what I know, and knowing how an investigation of a member of your unit can adversely effect the entire unit, it is my hypothesis that very few actual investigations are taking place. In fact, I suspect that unless the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine already has a poor performance record, an accusation of homosexuality without some other "crime" (as you keep calling it) is likely most often ignored. This, oddly enough, is how the service member's record ties into a discharge.
I didn't think I was being high and mighty about the strength of your arguments. We clearly disagree on the policy, but you've either been simply discounting my statements without some verifiable evidence in support offered by the homosexual community, or making inferences based upon anecdotal evidence from those who've been discharged AND made contact with the media. (In either case setting an imposible bar for anyone to meet.) These people -who have been discharged and you know about it through media reports- all seemingly have one thing in common: They're the ultimate patriot who's done nothing wrong except living the oh-so very normal and loving life of a homosexual. According to them, they were the perfect soldier- until they were outed by some stupid redneck bigot who simply couldn't stand to be in the same unit as some fag. (Paraphrasing their claims.) And yet, according to the Pentagon, most service members don't believe a change in the policy will adversely effect readiness.
So how do you make those two positions jive? Either homosexuals are slinking around in constant fear of being "investigated" because of all these bigots just waiting to out some guy they think might be gay, or most service members don't really care all that much so the number of reported outings isn't nearly what the media will have oyu believe- thus gay service members aren't living in fear. You can't have it both ways.
My conjecture is that the few homosexuals per year that are actually discharged under the policy were so due to their inability to work cohesively within their unit. They were either disruptive (possibly due to their sexual orientation, possibly not) or simply poor performers. As such, when the accusation of homosexuality was made, and the CO took a look at the kid's SRB, he/she decided that this one might not be fit for service and a request for further action initiated. I further suspect that in those rare instances, an internal unit investigation -which likely amounts to the Platoon Sergeant asking a few questions of the subject's closest known associates within his/her unit- revealed that the cohesion was being severely disrupted. In other words, aggravating circumstances contributed to those who've been discharged.
Again, we can debate the merits of the policy or the way it's being administered. Most recently, it's been the latter. My experience and knowledge of the USMC along with my observations and understanding that there is clearly an agenda to mainstream homosexuality and the US Armed Forces dropping DADT would be considered a major victory in that effort are what drive my opinion on this topic. I realize you come from a different perspective but frankly, I don't see it as containing the same foundation as mine; you continue to rely on media reports and testimony of those advocating for the change, and denying the viability of those who have or are currently serving. That's your prerogative but it reads more like a the vision of the bratty child squeezing his eyes shut tightly, stomping his feet, and rambling "nah, nah, nah's" so as not to listen to reason. I don't believe I've been the least bit disrespectful about this issue -to you or to homosexuals- but I do disagree with your position just as the vast majority of Marines and combat troops in general. If you respect the military as you noted to Unsane above, then you must at least respect the fact that they may know what could be degrading to their efforts and ultimately their lives. Putting lives at risk -if in fact it goes that far- should surely not take second fiddle to the wishes of 3-5% of the population trying to change this policy for the sake of greater gains in other areas.
[Edit: I just "saved" this comment and went over to HotAir to check the headlines. Guess what was there? Hopefully you'll see how this supports my position. If not, then I don't think I'll ever have any success in convincing you that what is actually going on in the military is not what's generally being reported by the media or the gay community through the media.]
[Edit #2: From the LAT piece: Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson, one of the authors of the Defense Department study released last week, said that 85% of the discharge cases brought under the statute involved service members who revealed their homosexuality in some manner — a situation that, he implied, forced the military to investigate. Hmmmmm. Seems I mentioned something about that... But what do I know?]
They're the ultimate
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 9:05pm.
They're the ultimate patriot who's done nothing wrong except living the oh-so very normal and loving life of a homosexual. According to them, they were the perfect soldier- until they were outed by some stupid redneck bigot who simply couldn't stand to be in the same unit as some fag. (Paraphrasing their claims.) And yet, according to the Pentagon, most service members don't believe a change in the policy will adversely effect readiness.Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/comment/reply/43576/1390310#ixzz17HzknA6B
This is basic logic again! Most does not equal all. If it only takes one credible outing to initiate an investigation, than gay service members aren't safe from that even if "most" other service members don't mind them being there. Do you see how you take, over and over again, a grey area and try to force it to be black or white? I absolutely can have it both ways-- most service members can be okay with gays in the military, and gays in the military can still be in fear of investigation initiated by the few who aren't.
I read an interview with one woman who talked about how hard the different standards made it. She was pretty open with one unit she was a part of, because no one had a problem, and then she was transfered to another unit where she didn't feel safe. But if you've let your guard down about personal details once, it can be very hard to put cats back into bags. And I'm sure it is easy to make mistakes that out yourself. As for how people currently serving feel about it, I know that the marines are an exception, but didn't most military service members indicate that they didn't think repealing DADT would hurt combat-readiness or effectiveness? How do you get from that that the majority of combat troops disagree with me? Did "combat troops" answer differently than other servicemembers? The article: There's plenty of evidence for my position in there as well. Those discharges are down because the administration has decided to make it harder to discharge someone. That indicates to me that there were, and probably still are, discharges that the military didn't want to make-- meaning good soldiers who messed up or got outed and whom they had to discharge. According to that article, the Pentagon counsel implied that slip ups on the part of servicemembers "forced" the military to investigate-- that also sounds like they didn't want to, but had to. "Revealing their homosexuality" doesn't mean they behaved badly-- it could mean a friend tagged them in a facebook photo kissing their boyfriend! It could have nothing to do with their behavior on duty.I heard somewhere else that another change that's been made concerns what can be considered a valid "outing" that needs to be investigated. What that says to me is that there were unneccessary discharges, and gay people are now protected from at least some of them. In any case, that argues against your contention that the military leadership would never ever discharge anyone who didn't deserve it.
Once again mambear
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 12/05/2010 - 11:41pm.
You go on and on about how I can't substantiate my position with fact and even when it's provided by way of and LAT article, you still can't admit it. 85%!!! 85% of recent discharges have been the result of gays going to commanding officers and saying "I'm gay!" Why, because they don't fit in. Because they can't handle the rigors of military life and DADT gives them an out! Exactly what I said earlier.
But it's nice to know that you counter with: "I read some article" and "I heard someone once say..."
This conversation has reached it's conclusion.
You don't get it! People
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:35pm.
You don't get it! People revealing their orientation DOES NOT mean they did it on purpose! Making a mistake and revealing your orientation gets you kicked out just as fast as purposely revealing your orientation. And even if it is only 15% who don't want to get kicked out , you actually think that would be an acceptable number? What if 15% of everyone who got kicked out of the military actually deserved to stay and were unjustly discharged? That wouldn't bother you?!
You want evidence? Here: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_61015d70-bbd4-52ee-a594-6181970cf...
This is from the National Guard, but the military officials go on record saying there was nothing performance based. They have no reason to say that if it isn't true. They want her to reenlist as fast as she can if the law is repealed.
I can't for the life of me find the article I referred to before, otherwise I would happily have linked it.
More stories: http://www.thenation.com/article/156477/dont-ask-dont-tell%E2%80%94anyon...
There are tons of them. One guy "outed himself" when his house burned down and a firefighter found a sex tape. That kind of thing happens, although, hopefully not that specific thing very often! But it is completely disingenuous, and once again totally illogical, for you to claim that every instance in which orientation is self revealed is someone wanting to get out of the military and purposefully telling someone.
mamabear
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:48pm.
Leave the freakin' military alone already, and let them operate as they see fit. Sheesh.
We're not talking about race or gender here, but about people's personal sexual fixations that go beyond the norm and the natural. No one needs to know this stuff. As for the sob story about a house burning down, oh well. Guy/girl has worse things to worry about at that point anyway.
Homosexuality is all up in society's grill enough as-is. We are UBER tolerant of it. Sheesh (again :))
- Homosapien Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
We're not talking about race
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:05pm.
We're not talking about race or gender here, but about people's personal sexual fixations that go beyond the norm and the natural.
Just for the record, I support your right to express that completely ignorant opinion.
As for the sob story about a house burning down, oh well. Guy/girl has worse things to worry about at that point anyway. Right. Why would anyone who had just lost their house be worried about losing their livelihood? Seriously, get some real problems, right?!
Just for the record, I
Submitted by MrShy on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:13pm.
Just for the record, I support your right to express that completely ignorant opinion.
Continually calling people ignorant doesn't slowly make them something closer to resembling ignorant. Doesn't even move things a fraction of an inch, or a sliver of a hair.
We get it. You champion all things homosexual. It's all about them wanting to be seen as "equal" and we need to hear about their sob stories... and not the house burning down part, but how it's revealed that they're not doing the p***s-v****a thing.
- Shy's Head Hurts
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I didn't mention it because
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:21pm.
I didn't mention it because the story is sad. I mentioned it because it is a direct refutation of the contention that statistics that list 85% of DADT discharges as self-inflicted equates to 85% of DADT discharges being lazy gay people who want to get out of the military and so announce their orientation to their superiors.
bad rufutation hippiebear
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:19pm.
All you're proving is that some stories don't fall in that 85% category.
They would fall in the 15% category.
If BK had said 100%, then you would have something.
We Are The 53%
I used that example
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 7:40pm.
I used that example specifically because it is considered a self-outing. I know the designation is weird, but that was my whole point!
Just refrain from talking about the military...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 2:41pm.
I got that survey and refused to answer it. Why? Because I don't feel like making myself a target.
Sorry, hippiebear, but once again you indicate you do not know what you are talking about. In fact, it would be better if you refrained from commenting on matters military. When people get discharged from the military, it is a big deal, and when it is "less than honorable" or "dishonorable" discharges, it is an even bigger deal. The military doesn't use that option just because. That takes a lot of time and effort and ties up a great deal of resources.
You simply do not, and do not WANT to, understand the inner workings of the military and why things happen within the ranks as they do. Every one of your long-winded pseudo-intellectual posts here make this very plain.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I am entitled to my opinions
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:43pm.
I am entitled to my opinions about the military, just as everyone here who is grossly ignorant about basic biology, human sexuality, and homosexual culture is welcome to their opinions on gays. You are welcome to tell me I'm wrong, and I am free to tell them they are wrong.
Why
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:51pm.
Who ensures your right?
The Grossly Ignorant Protection Act of 2009.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:58pm.
The same one that purports to protect me from prosecution about being "grossly ignorant about the homosexual culture."
Key word being gross.
Gross is right.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:11pm.
Tell us about the smell hippiebear. What about the smell? Is it as repugnant as coming to NewsBusters to read new posts and finding out half of them are spew from you?
Come on hippiebear. You are always telling us how loving and natural it is. Tell us about the smell Freakshow.
I have a sneaking suspicion
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:16pm.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are the kinkiest person on NB. Just a guess, I know I'll never know if I'm right or not... but the things you choose to fixate on are telling!
I'll never know if I'm right or not
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:21pm.
Just assume your wrong, and you will be right
Just as I figured.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:25pm.
You love teaching us all about the intricacies of homosexual culture. Understand the homosexuals. Love the homosexuals. Respect the homosexuals. Be the homosexuals. Until someone gets into the nitty gritty down and dirty details and then suddenly you want to know nothing about it because it is just a tad too nasty for the precious hippie.
Take a hike pathetic Loser.
scorecard
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:27pm.
The Vet, formerly known as JWF: 3
The Amazing "Annoying Girl": nil
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Not caring about the nitty
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:40pm.
Not caring about the nitty gritty details of people's personal choices is exactly what I am defending. I don't have to like what people do in order to think they have a right to do it. Our rights turn out to have nothing whatsoever to do with how any of our activities smell!
Why are you so focused on the smell hippiebear?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:00pm.
Tell us hippiebear. Tell us about the urinary infections due to fecal matter. Tell us about the ruptured colons hippiebear. Tell us about the blood to blood contact. How does that happen hippiebear? Tell us why there has never been a documented case of a man getting aids from a woman through intercourse. Why is that hippiebear.
COME ON. Le'ts celebrate this culture you want to force down our damn throats.
Loser
Tell us about the homosexual culture hippiebear. Celebrate it.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 11:18pm.
Physical Damage. Homosexual men who engage in anal sex are at a significantly high risk for numerous health problems. The high-risk nature of anal sex is simple: the rectum was not designed for sexual intercourse. According to amfAR, “compared to the vagina, rectal tissue is much more vulnerable to tearing during intercourse and the larger surface area of the rectum/colon provides more opportunity for viral penetration and infection.”[xxi]
In her book, Epidemic, Dr. Meg Meeker, a pediatrician, writes: “The anus opens into the rectum…which is not as well suited for penile penetration as the female vagina is. Both the anus and the rectum have rich blood supplies, and their walls, thinner than the walls of the vagina, are easily damaged. When penetration occurs, it’s easier to tear the blood vessels, which in turn increase the risk of acquiring or receiving an infection…”[xxii]
Physical injuries that can result from anal sex include: bleeding, lacerations, and perforations of the rectum and/or anal sphincter muscles. Once this damage occurs, open sores, hemorrhoids, and anal warts can result.[xxiii] Anal sex (as well as oral/anal contact) also exposes individuals to fecal matter, which can lead to a number of gastrointestinal infections, such as proctitis, enteritis, and proctocolitis.[xxiv]
Anal Cancer. Homosexual men are also at an increased risk for anal cancer.[xxv] According to the American Cancer Society, risk factors for anal cancer include: Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes anal and/or genital warts; multiple sexual partners; and anal intercourse.[xxvi] Due to concerns about anal cancer, some health professionals now recommend anal Pap Smears for MSM.[xxvii]
STDs. Compared to heterosexual men, MSM are at an increased risk of contracting a number of dangerous STDs, including HIV/AIDS. According to the GLMA, these STDs include: “urethritis, proctitis, pharyngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, genital warts and HIV infection.”[xxviii]
Recent studies indicate that some STDs, such as gonorrhea and syphilis, are increasing among MSM.[xxix] For example, gonorrhea diagnoses for MSM increased from four percent in 1988 to 20.2 percent in 2004, according to the CDC.[xxx] The syphilis rate among MSM has also increased in cities such as Chicago, New York and Seattle.[xxxi] After reaching an all-time low in 2000, the overall rate of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis has increased for the fifth year in a row, mainly among men. According to the CDC, increased rates of syphilis among MSM “may be largely responsible” for this. The CDC estimates that more than half of P&S syphilis cases in recent years occurred among MSM.[xxxii]
MSM also have a higher risk of contracting STDs that cause liver disease.[xxxiii] According to the CDC, liver diseases such as Hepatitis A and B “disproportionately affect men who have sex with men.” About 10 percent of all new Hepatitis A (HAV) infections in the US are to MSM. The CDC says that HAV is primarily spread by the “fecal-oral route through close person-to-person contact, such as household or sex contact with an infected person.”[xxxiv]
According to the CDC, Hepatitis B (HBV), which is spread through infected blood, is also higher in MSM, who experience 15-20 percent of all new HBV infections. Risk factors of HBV for MSM include: multiple partners, unprotected receptive anal sex, and a history of other STDs, as well as injection drug use.[xxxv]
Source.
~He's kinky?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:27pm.
If he were, you would have one hell of a case of the warm-fuzzies for him, considering your deep personal investment in defending all forms of depravity.
Not trying to be snarky Bru,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:30pm.
Not trying to be snarky Bru, but I honestly think in mamabear's world hetero is kinky.
I could... oh dear, I should
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:40pm.
I could... oh dear, I should really stop right here, shouldn't I?
Yes, you should.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:49pm.
Yes, you should.
What you don't seem to
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 9:53pm.
What you don't seem to understand mamabear, is that the military is different, and always should be. Their job is different, with special rules because of what they do and the responsibility they carry on their shoulders for one another and the country as a whole. Civilian rules do not and should not apply to them. In what civilian situation would someone be compelled into a situation that would most certainly cause their death? None.
The military should not have to conform to the rules of the rest of society.
God, you are so right! I
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 12/06/2010 - 10:08pm.
God, you are so right! I never thought of it that way. If we just declare that people in the military have no rights, we can make them do anything we want! Let's force them to do suicide bombings, those seem to be pretty effective in Afghanistan. I bet the Taliban would think twice about f'ing with us then, huh?
Or... we could insist that our military treat the people who serve it as well as they are able given the nature of the job. If it is possible to treat them well-- not easy, or convenient-- then they should.