CNN: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' an 'Unjust' Policy; Gays Have 'Right to Fight'
On Friday's Newsroom, CNN's Ali Velshi channeled the homosexual lobby's disappointment with the Obama administration's defense of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "This unjust policy has gone on far too long in America." Velshi also stated that homosexuals "have a right to serve. They have a right to fight."
The anchor criticized the Justice Department's appeal of a federal judge's Tuesday injunction halting the military from enforcing the 17-year-old policy during his regular "XYZ" commentary. After giving a brief on the judge's ruling and the Obama administration's Thursday appeal, Velshi outlined his opposition to"don't ask, don't tell:"
VELSHI: Justice delayed is not necessarily justice denied in this case, but it is justice delayed. It's time to end 'don't ask, don't tell' now. This unjust policy has gone on far too long in America. Countries around the world allow gay troops to serve openly and just because a policy has been deemed constitutional in the past doesn't actually mean it's good policy and it certainly doesn't mean it's right.
The CNN anchor continued by making the standard liberal comparison between homosexuality and race or religion: "Imagine if 'don't ask, don't tell' was in effect in your workplace. It would be illegal....Would any organization- and they can't legally- tell it's employees to 'don't ask, don't tell' about ethnicity? About religion? About political leaning?"
It's interesting that Velshi raised the religious issue, as it was CNN's founder, Ted Turner, who infamously berated Christian employees of his network as "Jesus freaks" for observing Ash Wednesday. One might surmise there was an unwritten "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding Christians working at CNN.
The CNN anchor concluded his commentary with more left-leaning talking points: "Gay men and women have served, fought and died for this country since it was founded. They have a right to serve. They have a right to fight, and, at the very least, let's give them the right to be who they are." Actually, no one has a "right" to serve in the military, as the armed forces routinely deny overweight, disabled, convicts, and others from serving.
The late Vietnam War hero, Marine Colonel John Ripley, who was awarded the Navy Cross for single-handedly destroying the Dong Ha Bridge in 1972, argued in a May 4, 1993 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that members of the military are "simply the protectors of...freedoms and never did we have the full embodiment thereof, nor did we expect to enjoy the full embodiment of constitutional freedoms. To even think in these terms as a military man is patently ludicrous and counterproductive to the mindset of a warrior who must think only of mission accomplishment and the good of the unit." Col. Ripley later stated in his testimony that permitting open homosexuals to serve would "virtually destroy the Marine Corps by imposing on us this deviation of values which we hold dear, which we have fought for, and which we know to be proper."
Earlier in 2010, Velshi endorsed legislation that would "require school districts to have policies recognizing sexual orientation and gender identity" during his July 25 "XYZ" commentary. Overall in 2010, CNN has actively promoted the agenda of homosexual advocacy groups. On September 27, anchor Kyra Phillips gave a ringing endorsement of televangelist Bishop Carlton Pearson's "gospel of inclusion."On August 4, the day that California's Proposition 8 was overturned, the network leaned mostly towards those who opposed the voter-approved amendment which bans same-sex "marriage." CNN's Gloria Borger gave a glowing profile of Ted Olson and David Boies, the two main attorneys who worked to overturn Prop 8 on June 16. The network also premiered their pro-homosexual parenting documentary, "Gary and Tony Have a Baby" in June and promoted it with a series of pro-homosexual agenda segments during the entire month.
The full transcript of Ali Velshi's commentary from the end of the 2 pm Eastern hour of Friday's Newsroom:
VELSHI: Time now for the 'XYZ' of it. On Tuesday, a federal judge told the U.S. military to stop enforcing its 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military. Now, the Justice Department is pushing to keep the judge's order from going into effect, even though the Obama administration has come out against 'don't ask, don't tell.' Plus, the military's now telling troops not to alter their behavior in any way.
Look, the administration still opposes the policy, but wants it changed through an act of Congress. Justice delayed is not necessarily justice denied in this case, but it is justice delayed. It's time to end 'don't ask, don't tell' now. This unjust policy has gone on far too long in America. Countries around the world allow gay troops to serve openly and just because a policy has been deemed constitutional in the past doesn't actually mean it's good policy and it certainly doesn't mean it's right.
Imagine if 'don't ask, don't tell' was in effect in your workplace. It would be illegal. What kind of an environment would that be, and what kind of precedent would it set? Would any organization- and they can't legally- tell it's employees to 'don't ask, don't tell' about ethnicity? About religion? About political leaning?
Gay men and women have served, fought and died for this country since it was founded. They have a right to serve. They have a right to fight, and, at the very least, let's give them the right to be who they are. That's my 'XYZ.'
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
if we can't pick on f*gs...
Submitted by puredmashie on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:13pm.
the terrorists have won!
you've got that completely backwards
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:08am.
The terrorists are by and large Muslim. Their approach to homosexuals and lesbians is to kill them in painful and terroristic ways.
Picking on fags is a leftover from days gone by when a very small part of the population thought it was manly to bash a gay. Not wanting to shower with them is not the same thing and you know it. Not wanting them openly having sex on shipboard is not the same thing. Etc., etc., etc.
Nice try troll. Please feel free to play again and better luck next time.
Retiring Marine Corps (Cor
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:14pm.
Retiring Marine Corps (Cor not corpse) Commandant Gen. James Conway is totaly against the repel of DADT. He said many Marines are too. I can say that the Marines around here that I talk to are 100% behind the Commandant. It is a good thing he is retiring or Obama would fire him. It could be one reason to retire.
Military Voting?
Submitted by Dingbat on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:16pm.
Totally OT, and shamlessly: Why is there no indignation, even in us right wing, gun clinger, etc... sites on the issue of NY and IL military being deprived of voting? No threads? Or did I miss it? (US Army (Ret))
AMEN!!!
Submitted by rick.bren on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:56am.
AMEN!!!
check out those threads
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:10am.
Many blogs picked up that news and the postings on those threads are supportive of our troops and extremely down on the bureaucratic clowns that messed this up. Just check around at other blog sites like moonbattery, ace of spades, etc.
Just say no
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:17pm.
I think a solution can be worked out, but homosexuals must agree to set limits and those limits must be judiciously enforced.
The problem from the outset if these limits aren't set will be a the establishment of a protected minority. Unlike blacks -who, by the way, served as far back a the onset of the country- gays present the potential problem of a counter-culture and anti-establishment force. Blacks weren't adverse to military standards. Gays -simply be saying they won't serve unless they can serve openly- have already demonstrated that anti-establishment position and on top of that, demand the remaining 95% conform to it.
Also, for those who haven't served, and especially haven't served in the Marine Corps, take note of how strongly Marines feel about this issue. There's a reason for that. I can't adequately explain it in this forum, but if you served a successful tour in the Corps, you know what I mean. We're a different breed. I'm not saying better (well...) but definitely different.
"If the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, they'd have issued you one."
BK, I agree 100%
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:24pm.
Just as long as they are kept the hell away from classified information - at least to the extent possible, as they are prime targets for all kinds of blackmail. -DaveVote for the American in November
Dave...Gays and classified info
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:41pm.
Who would be more vulnerable to blackmail.? A closeted gay or one who is out of the closet.
Jerr
Jer,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:13pm.
That depends on how deep the closet is. Many members of our military who have classified access, both here and abroad, are under constant scrutiny of well trained foreign intelligence agents, who are undoubtedly observing them when they are "off base" - out on the town, as it were. In the event they were to get snatched up, the information they might provide could cause some serious problems for others working on our behalf. I think it prudent that those who are vulnerable to blackmail be kept away from information that could get others killed - and I am referring not just to homosexuals, but bisexuals, wife cheaters, gamblers, as well as anyone else who might "roll over" out of fear of discovery. -DaveVote for the American in November
Dave....I think it prudent also.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:21pm.
And as I perform a quick mental review of the more serious cases of espionage and security compromises since World War II, the dominant motivations seem to have been two-fold: Ideological and financial. Homosexual (or heterosexual) blackmail...not so much.
Jer
Jer, I agree
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:45pm.
Notice I said, "and I am referring not just to homosexuals, but bisexuals, wife cheaters, gamblers, [as well as anyone else who might "roll over" out of fear of discovery.] -DaveVote for the American in November
Dave...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:51pm.
Well, then, we are both in agreement. Let's have a drink [I wish].
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:57pm.
LOL - Fret not, as you are still on my "A" list for a round of golf, once I get some other "issues" out of the way. -DaveVote for the American in November
Issues?
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:12pm.
If getting those issues out of the way involves Dave and a grill then I'M IN!!!
Tagline holder. (Eventually?)
CNN - the clue phone is ringing...
Submitted by notinstl on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:21pm.
IT"S FOR YOU!
Serving in the armed forces of the US is NOT A RIGHT. Got that?
is it in invisible ink? calling Nicolas Cage
Submitted by mom_rox on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:50pm.
I don't see the "right" to serve in the military listed in our Constitution.
It must be in the part of our
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:54pm.
It must be in the part of our Constitution that allows the government to force us to buy something. Of course the new defense for that is that social security and medicare aren't in the Constitution either.
I, for one, am ready to do without those also.
That wouldn't be a valid
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:39pm.
That wouldn't be a valid argument, because Social Security and Medicare aren't "rights," no matter that they are "entitlement" programs. No one has a right to serve in the military.
If that were true, the services would be forced, by the Americans With Disabilities Act, to enlist people with all kinds of handicaps and to make accomodations for them.
Sorry for the interruption, motherbelt...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:50pm.
Did you receive my PMs?
Jer
Could you at least nod your
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:54pm.
Could you at least nod your head?
:-)
Jer
no, no mom_rox
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:14am.
It's to be found in the umbras and penumbras of hints secretly encoded in a way that only deranged members of the Supreme Clowns can ferret out (my apologies to ferrets).
This repeal could be very destabilizing during a war
Submitted by merly1 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:26pm.
These judges playing lawmakers are simply stupid. And dangerous.
The Roots of Obama's Rage
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:56pm.
According to this author, Obama has no intention of winning any or our wars. He simply wants to get out. This would be a good way for him to lose the wars without it being his fault.
Homosexuals can serve in the
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 8:29pm.
Homosexuals can serve in the military. They simply have to keep their sexual lives and preferences to themselves. This they refuse to do. Does this mean if there are other military policies that interfere with what they consider their rights, they need to be adressed also?
Because the military isn't about catering to the rights of the soldiers, it's about keeping our country safe, and I'm prepared to give them a LOT of latitude to perform their job.
As BK stated---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:28pm.
Gays want to dictate terms.
Only an individual who has served in the military understands, despite President Eisenhowers warnings about the potential dangers of a "Military-Industrial Complex" (as a reminder to all that military matters and personnel must ultimately be subordinate to civilian government control in order to suppress or at least lessen the chances of a military junta type takeover), that civilians in society cannot dictate to the military as far as what its operational mandates, internal or external, must be.
They have no knowledge of, and no experience in, the military, but in fact rely on nothing more than personal preference and emotion in forming their opinion as to whether or not DADT should stand or be eliminated.
Gays who have served in the military should most certainly be heard when voicing their opinion regarding the brouhaha, because they lived it.
Provided, of course, they are aware of the possible schism that could develop as a result of them being accused of coming down favorably on the side of their homosexuality as opposed to addressing the military operational ramifications of having Gays serving openly in the Armed Forces.
Which is, I suppose, the essential basis of the overall argument; deleterious effect, or not.
The military mind, in opposition to political correctness, says yes, the effect will be less than salutary.
MD
IT is the military who should
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:51pm.
IT is the military who should decide military matters, as long as they don't interfere with the rights of civilians.
Actually Shhhhhh. Shhhhhh. Keep it on the down low.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:51am.
Shhhh. It should be up to the guy in charge of the military. Shhhh. The guy set up to be in charge by the constitution. Shhhhh. CinC. Shhhhh. Barack Obama. He could decree it in a heartbeat. Shhhhh. But he won't because he knows that the guys in the military and most of the country will really be ticked off by it. Shhhhh. So he plays it off by laying it off to Congress or the courts so he won't be stuck with doing something unpoplular.
LOL!
Submitted by Rukus on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:20pm.
Shhhhh! They seem to think the military is a democracy, it ain't!! Shhhhh... :-)
Tagline holder. (Eventually?)
Whoa , easy there boy. No one
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:26pm.
Whoa , easy there boy. No one says gays cannot fight......
Where'd you get that idea?
All we're saying is.....we don't want them whispering ' I really , really want to fight ' in our ear in the middle of the night.capeesh?
Barack_Must_Go.....
What's next?
Submitted by ZuccoZoid on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 9:33pm.
How about don't ask, don't tell in state prisons?
Don't ask, don't tell; bend over and take it. Kinda like Obama's gov't.
Didn't you know? Congress
Submitted by ricklail on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:17am.
Didn't you know? Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA, several years ago that has stopped all rape, homosexual activity and other sexual acts. Right! I am the Mainetnance Supervisor in a large prison. We know who the homos are because they do tell. It is not unusal to catch a couple every week. As for PREA, that was a big joke.
Safety First
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:49am.
I'm not sure where but I am pretty sure I remember reading that there was a push to make condoms available in prisons. Granted that sex is against most prison policies even if consentual but "It's going to happen anyway, shouldn't it be safe". Tax dollars at work.
Another reason to keep DADT
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:02pm.
Should openly serving gays be authorized to attend this celebration of homosexuality? (NSFW or children)
BK
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:27am.
That goes screaming right past DADT and all the way to DWK (don't wanna know).
And aren't these the people Nancy Pelosi's constituents?
You're mainly preaching to
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:34pm.
You're mainly preaching to the choir at this point. Mestilf apparently has been dispatched by the powers that be. Aggressive liberal dissent is becoming an endangered species at NB. The Tenebrous Paradigm [Just leave...all liberals, just leave] seems to be gaining momentum.
Jer
Damn Jer-
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:48pm.
You enjoyed the pics though? (just kidding)
I didn't mind him calling me out on the Major though. I understand why it's a touchy subject (no pun intended) but unfortunately, we often seem to set our opinions in stone.
Well, I say "we" - what I mean is "you all" ;-)
Actually, I wouldn't be adverse to gays serving openly so long as reasonable limits were placed within the UCMJ and gays couldn't claim discrimination every time they got a bad Pro/Con, FitRep or passed over for promotion. If there are rules in place, gays who really want to serve but won't on principle would be able to freely; those at the Fulsome Street Fair wouldn't serve if recruiters were giving out free - well- nevermind.
BK...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:00am.
I'm a little hesitant to disagree. There seems to be a hint of suppression in the air.
In my fence straddling mode, I can understand the soundness of arguments both pro and con.
But, ultimately, I favor whatever is in the best interests of our military and unit coheshion. And if it is an idea whose time has not yet arrived--and may never arrive--then so be it.
Jer
Oh...yes indeed, as I previously noted, the Facebook pics are quite lovely.
come jer....it ain't that bad
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:51pm.
i enjoy your posts. i know who you are and you don't disappoint and you are rarely truly obnoxious. i probably can't even say that about myself. but it does say on the masthead "exposing and combating liberal media bias"....so ya gotta expect some pushback, eh? nb never promised to be "fair and balanced" or any other bs lines like that. what i don't understand is how this has become 228's "defense of pot, porn, and prostitution" forum. we all have our "hotspots" i reckon.
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
And I enjoy yours, porpoiseboy...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:06am.
And I enjoy yours, porpoiseboy...heck I enjoy everyone's posts--even Thoreau's, who has just announced the commencement of the armed revolution to exterminate the last vestiges of liberalism and liberal vermin come Nov 2.
Dave has graciously offered me political asylum in his basement as the hostilities approach the outskirts of Atlanta.
Jer
i knew i could count on dave to offer
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:14am.
some true christian charity. you are a good man dave. heck, it's the sick who really need a doctor, eh? :-)
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
Well, actually ppb, I lied a
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:25am.
Well, actually ppb, I lied a little...Dave doesn't know about it yet. But he says we're going to play a round of golf sometime, so I figured I would just hop a ride home with him and refuse to leave.
Jer
dangit jer....just like you libs
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:33am.
to force a good christian man to provide welfare when he would do it out of the goodness of his heart anyhoo....
cheers pal
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
Frankly;
Submitted by NewtypeConservative on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:08am.
I think that's a good thing. Let us conservatives have our websites, and the liberals can go whine about whatever on HuffPo, DU, and DKos.
Honestly, in my experience being a lurker, the vast majority of liberals who post here (exclusion: you, maybe) aren't actually interested in honest debate; they're interested in trying to white-wash wacky comments made by Dems, sweep any example of liberal media bias under the rug and make center and far left idealogues look like centrists (Obama, Jon Stewart, Colbert, etc., etc.,), oh and attack you when you say even one bad word about Stewart ("Have you ever even watched his show!!??" Yes I have, and he spent most of it fawning over a book that said religion is evil because it encourages people "in the best case" to do good things for the wrong reasons.) And then when you try to debate them, they bring up something completely unrelated as to whether or not you're religious/Christian/believe in evolution/whatever. Frankly, if I wanted to read that all day, I'd grab a barf-bag and a cup of coffee and read through the comments on DKos. Or if I wanted it performed live, in front of an admiring audience, I'd, you know, take out my ear-buds when I'm walking from class-to-class.
But I don't. So I read Newsbuster and occassionally browse the headlines on HuffPo for a laugh.
And if "aggressive liberal dissent" is posting blatant non-sequiters and calling anyone who tries to argue an idiot then frankly, I have no problem with his ilk being banned.
Ugh. Wall of text.
Welcome aboard Newtype- if
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:14am.
Welcome aboard Newtype- if you've been lurking than I'm sure you'll fit right in. Glad to have the younger perspective. Enjoy your stay.
Thanks!
Submitted by NewtypeConservative on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:23am.
I've been reading the website since the 2008 election, so I've pretty much been a long time lurker until recently. I think I made this account because of an article about Meghan McCain, and I wanted to rant about how much I despise that lady, and how she shouldn't even pretend to speak for young "Republicans" ( I prefer conservative, but I am a registered Republican, so eh) like my friends and I. Then I forgot about it, and then remembered it just a couple days ago.
And, hey, I'm looking forward to thrilling you guys with stories of the wacky Libs around my school.
Well, NtC, in that case
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:21am.
you might start by heading over to HuffPo and advising the scores of conservative and contrarian posters there to pack their bags and only comment in ideologically friendly confines.
This country is already polarizied to a greater exent than I've witnessed in my lifetime. May as well make the schism total and permanent.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:28am.
I agree. Any thoughts as to why that might be?
Yeah, because you didn't
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:22am.
Yeah, because you didn't correct my typos but tossed in those embarrassing [sics] just to publicly humiliate me. ;-)
But, my serious and shorthand answer is one word: MEDIA
There is a clear and consistent perception--part real and part exaggeration--of a left leaning MSM: A phenomenon which a couple of decades ago spawned a powerfully influential and aggressively partisan talk radio format dominated by conservative superstars who have accumulated fortunes by a vigorous and relentless assault on All Things Liberal; as well as the eventual rise of Fox News Channel which has been spectacularly successful in capturing the entirety of conservative audience and much of the independent and right-leaning Democrat demographic. As CNN and MSNBC watched their numbers dwindle in the face of the Fox juggernaut, they jettisoned much of their conservative punditry which had formerly been given at least an audible voice, and refocused on attracting the "non-Fox" audience. This was a marketing decision which has thus far accomplished little more than further bifurcating political opinion and hardening ideological positions. So the media--and by extension the country--is fundamentally divided with Talk Radio and FoxNation in one corner, and most of the rest of the media in the other.
Twenty-four hour cable news cycles-- in which contention and controversy are not only countenanced but actively promoted is another exacerbating component, as well as the explosive numbers of politically-oriented blogs and websites on the internet. Bloggers don't generally get noticed by taking moderate stances and urging bipartisan co-operation. They, too, thrive on conflict while urging their political representatives to 'make war, not love' with the "enemy" on the other side of the aisle.
So, politics is no longer a contest of ideas between reasonable men and women of differing views on what is best for the country, but a war between good and evil waged by the morally righteous against insidious forces bent on the destruction of decent society. And each side thinks it is the "good" and the other is "evil".
Regrettably, the MSM must bear much of the responsibility for the current state of affairs. While I would insist that it was never as biased as nearly all on the right have been led to believe, the fact that it has been slanted to the left for the last half century is simply irrefutable. And it--and all of us--are now paying a price for that reality.
Jer
Oh piffle paffle fooey smooey
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:44am.
There are those of us on the right that have always been blabbing. Then there are those on the left that have always been trying to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM this country.
Then there are those in the middle that outnumber both of us. They can be swayed to one team sometimes (2004, maybe now) or another team sometimes (2006, 2008).
Unfortunately for both teams, it is those guys in the middle that count. Our team will always vote for our team. The mushy middle guys that waffle from year to year is what counts when added to our team's vote.
Blaming it on the 24 media cycle, blogosphere, perceptions, marketing, etc is just a bunch of piffle paffle fooey smooey libtalk.
Face it, your guys blew it, you made the middle wafflers take notice and now the ball is prolly gonna go to the other team. Next time, try thinking about the middle.
Sincerely,
A veteran of a 1000 psychic wars that has no sig line no more that can be auto-inserted.
Jer-
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:19am.
Yeah, sorry about the [sic] thing - I just never get to do that and I almost felt like a real blogger! Actually, I really, really, really miss my spell checker and that was more of a knock on myself than you. Don't take it personally- if you went back and checked my posts, I'd look like a drunk with hiccups!
I agree with your assessment on the divide.
My initial thought was that politicians had become more ideological, probably revolving around the contentious VietNam War. But McCarthy and Hoover and John Wilkes Booth were all before 1968.
I think it does have to do with the advent of CNN and the 24-hour news cycle. Never before was the average citizen able to see the kind of things that really happen in this world without the Cronkite filter. Breaking news stories were carried live and given many minutes if not hours of contiguous coverage- rather than the 45-60 seconds on the evening news cast. And I'm not picking on CNN from a partisan standpoint; they were just first. You're right on about Fox vs. CNN and MSNBC relative to viewership.
Breaking stories, however, aren't happening every hour and inevitably cameras moved to- and concentrated on politicians, who, by all regards, are campaigning virtually 24/7/365. That camera light shined on much more than just the person in front of it, however; it enlightened "the process". There's nothing more polarizing than the process behind which we're governed.
Huh;
Submitted by NewtypeConservative on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:31am.
They actually allow conservative posters over there? Last time I made an account (about a year or two ago) I was pretty much instabanned. So your suggestion might not be possible, they might have IP banned me.
But here's the thing; if every lib on here was more like you, there'd be less of a problem. More friendly sparring and ribbing, less unhinged ranting about stupid crap. The rub: they aren't like you. I mean, just looking at Melstif's posts aggravate me.
Of course, I'm of the opinion that the "schism" is being made permanent, not by me, but by our wacky gubmint (both sides), but that may just be the tinfoil hat talking.
Now don't be too kind, you'll
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:36am.
Now don't be too kind, you'll embolden him. Must keep these libs down, you know. Even the so-called moderate ones!
Oh!
Submitted by NewtypeConservative on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:41am.
You're right! I forgot! Uhm.
Jer, you smell like Starbucks coffee and those nasty little pastries they sell! Liberal.
I'm not very good at this. :(
lol
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:49am.
lol
Welcome to the real world NtC
Submitted by Delsa on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:07pm.
glad to have your voice here. You were too funny. I entered comment at #70 and was just reading from bottom up when I found your comments.
Laughed at the Starbuck comment. Real coffee drinkers don't go to Starbucks because they sell everything but coffee.
Welcome to NewsBusters
Moderates
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:41am.
That term does not apply to liberals or Muslims.
Kidding, kidding.
Hey, Newtype---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:49am.
Looking forward to some of your thrilling stories about the day to day battle on campus.
Glad you are willing, hope the stories are not too chilling, and if at any point you find they are unfulfilling, well, hell, just drop 'em and go straight to shilling. ( the conservative line)
Around here, that should get you top billing! ;^)
Welcome.
MD
Haha.
Submitted by NewtypeConservative on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:11am.
Thanks for the warm welcome, but the real battle is trying to withstand the professors in my GenEd. courses and trying not to scream when I see idiots wearing Che shirts unirionically.
To survive, I make a game out of it. My friend and I count the Che shirts we see at our respective campuses every day, then tally them up over E-Mail. Whoever has the highest tally at the end of the quarter gets twenty bucks.
I'm currently winning with 43 Che shirts, (almost two a day!). I don't know if I should be excited, or extremely depressed.
(Nice limerick, by the way).
Newtype---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:40am.
Personally, I think CoC (Conservatives on Campus) should get hazardous duty pay, combat pay, and overseas pay (for being in a foreign country).
Regardless, the fact you are there in the first place shows you have the tenacity to carry on.
Cheers!
MD
Newtype
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:53am.
Allow me to welcome you to the party.
A suggestion about the Che shirts....over on Blackfive (milblog linked here)....Uncle Jimbo used to sell "Don't Be a DouChe" t-shirts. It's been a while since I've visited, but I'm sure they still sell them (Uncle Jimbo lives in Madison....so his rants about Che shirts are epic, if you haven't read them, you will enjoy them).
You might use your $20 for that.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:39am.
Mestilf may be gone, or there may be a glitch in the system; regardless, if he / it is gone, I doubt you believe it is because aggressive liberal dissent is becoming an endangered species at NBs.
The Misfit was caught lying, called out for it, skewered for same by the Vet, yet continued to skip merrily down the primrose path, all the while denying he had lied and what is worse, demanding at each reminder that it be pointed out where he lied.
Whether that kind of methodology can be righteously compared to fingers in the ears and "la-la-la, I can't hear you" or not, you are a good enough debater to know that denial of that magnitude portends a complete waste of space on a thread.
Not to mention a childish simplicity at odds with some of what Mestilf threw out on baited hooks.
MD
DADT Repeal
Submitted by stunned on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:04pm.
DADT should not be repealed UNTIL the repeal will improve National Security. If the repeal will hurt retainment of experienced troops and the recruiting of new troops it should not be repealed. The ultimate goal of the repealing of DADT is to hurt the military which the lefties despise.
tired of liberal lies
Left-Wing "Journalists"
Submitted by aerojack7 on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:29pm.
Can anyone name any cable/broadcast news anchors or hosts that have actually been in the military? I am serious. I may be able to give someone's opinion on any military personnel decisions a closer look if they had actually had ever worn the uniform.
Countries around the world are doing it...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:48am.
.....so we should too. I mean, who can argue with such logic as this? After all, isn't that how we put together the most powerful military ever...by doing things the way other countries do them?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go snort some coke, play in traffic, and jump off a bridge....you know, because folks in the neighborhood are doing it.
too true ckc1227
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:29am.
With the notable exception of the Brits and some the special units most all the Euroweenie "armies" are a joke. In Bosnia a superior UN force of Euroweenies was taken hostage by a ragtag unit of Serbs and held for ransom! Most of the Scandi units are pot smoking longhairs like the Dutch.
It is exactly our standards and training that make our war machine one of the mightiest (if not the mightiest) on the planet.
But then for libtards the military is nothing but a tool of imperialist aggression and therefore must be neutered. They really are A) ignorant and B) stupid.
I'd be curious to know
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 9:31pm.
I'd be curious to know whether these "other countries" would include those with real militaries (i.e., ones charged with the real prospect of successfully waging a war), you know, like China. Would anybody know this?
I have a right to serve too!
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:34am.
I am a one eyed, high school drop outin' , felony convicted, diabetes havin', one legged, overweight, cheesy poof noshin, non-citizen card havin', 45 year old deaf midget. And my brother is 7'5" tall and transgendered. He wants to serve too!
Some 75% of the nation is ineligible to serve for one reason or another. Let's give them the right to serve too since we are on the topic.
The Vet FKA JWF...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 9:44pm.
I think you and your brother should serve, too. Hell, you wouldn't even need to be armed. The enemy would either be scared to death or die laughing.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 9:49pm.
LOL - I'm putting my money on the 'die laughing' part. -DaveVote for the American in November
I have Asthma as well.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:51pm.
Otherwise I would limp over to your house, grab a stool, climb up, look you in the face with my one good eye, and wheeze "laugh now funnyman".
What concerns me. . .
Submitted by rick.bren on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:03am.
is what a civilian court can impose on the military. I read comments recently by the commmandant of the Marine Corps (I believe) that service members don't have the constitutional rights that others do. And I agree, I served in the Army many years ago. For example, First Amendments rights are very limited. Servicemembers cannot publicly criticize POTUS or others superiors. . . .
With regard to the topic - I have no problem with homosexuals serving as long as it is not disclosed. Many will NOT serve with gays. There is not a lot of privacy for lower ranking airmen, sailors, and soldiers. . .
Why not just make the service coed and use common bunking and showering areas?? Same difference. . .
The next "right": Women in Combat Brigades
Submitted by libBuster on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:51am.
After the Courts impose "gay rights" on the military the next barrier will be women in combat brigades. Get ready for women in Marine Combat Brigades and Army Infantry. Not because they can fight, but becuase they have a "right"
These "rights"
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 8:55am.
These "rights" are going to decimate the military. People aren't thinking of the impact these decisions are going to have on the volunteers who don't want to be forced to live in that kind of environment.
They can go elsewhere, and they will.
DADT unjust?
Submitted by lotr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 9:25am.
OK, then -- how about going back to "Ask and Tell", the previous longstanding American military policy (and we all know how dysfunctional the American military used to be before DADT...) before liberal Bill Clinton pushed through the liberal DADT policy?
I cannot believe how far the "line in the sand" has been moved in a mere two decades. It's nothing short of disturbing, the result of a concerted media and government (via the DOE) propaganda blitz.
As I've posted on one of the forums, using the same logic implies that delusional schisophrenics, non-US citizens, 13-17, 50-100 year olds, the legally blind, the clinically obese, convicted felons, et al., should all also be able to serve, and not only serve, but also serve "openly"...
I can just hear it now: "Go ahead -- ask me ask me for my papers! I'm a proud deportable alien, and have a right to fight openly!"
Stupidy run amok.
stop inventing "rights" already
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:03am.
Every time I turn around some libtard is discovering another "right" while completely ignoring the definition of a right - something you inherently hold without recourse to or taking from another. Thus we have the right to life and liberty because it does not impose anything upon another.
I'm sure some homosexuals and lesbians have a desire to join. I'm also sure most would serve honorably and well. I am just as sure that this is not a right as it forces an unwelcome association. The operative word is force.
But then that's what Progressivism is all about - forcing you to do that which We The People would not volunteer to do.
No one says gays should not have the right to fight
Submitted by Delsa on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:47am.
Gays are in the military and we all know that. They do not now and should not ever serve openly as homosexuals.
Someones sexual preferences are no ones business. When my father, brother, and sister, joined the military, they did not and were not asked to state their sexual preferences.
Our military men and women do not want sexual preferences on the front line, the chow line, the shower line, the creapper line, or anywhere else while serving.
What you do on your own time? No one gives a sh**!
Stay out of the military.
NO COURT HAS JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER!
If a court can order the military to allow gays to serve openly, could the court order the military to pull out of Iraq or Japan or Afghanistan, or....? and could they order the military to paint their equipment PINK?
Back off Gay lobby! Stay away from the greatest fighting force in THE WORLD!!!!!!!
This One Is Real Simple
Submitted by Maestroh on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:49pm.
Is serving in the military a "right?"
No. Then the argument is over and rights have nothing to do with this. What's next? Overweight people who can't pass the fitness standards get to stay? I mean how can you say it's ok to be prejudiced against a fat person but not a gay?