Good luck getting that through congress. The Blue Dogs are too worried about re-election, and this will be seen as another dodge from the health care, Afghanistan and Iran issues.
Obama is turning into the president of bread and circuses. He uses social issues with little or no impact on more serious questions to deflect attention from his massive failures in the economy and foreign relations. What's next for Obama? He has already done the talk show circuit, so maybe he will become a lounge act or do dinner theater.
to wear camouflage evening gowns to match their Hollywood Blvd. bought eye shadow don't you know! That stuff the "boys" get to wear is just sooooo unflattering to the little darlings! ;-(
They probably also want to prance about on the front line of combat in their specially made pink tu-tu!
Hey on the bright side... Enemy snipers will have an easy target! :)
"If you're a Liberal, anything you say is protected. If you're a Conservative, anything you say is hateful." - Laura Schlessinger
I knew it was coming, sooner rather than later. The president who had to flee to Minnesota to avoid a couple of hundred thousand of his citizens on 9-12, shows up to grovel and promise for a couple hundred of his donors. This isn't about serving, contrary to what the Speechmaker said in his speech, it's about openly serving. Service isn't good enough for the gay rights folks, their lifestyle has to be accepted, along with their service.
What's next, pink stripes for Marine dress blues, pink berets for the army, mauve flight suits for the Air Force?
A bit of philosophy first. The military has people living and working for long periods of time in very close proximity. This kind of proximity can build both strong friendships and strong sexual attractions, both heterosexual and homosexual. Unfortunately, both attractions are not well handled in these situations.
The current "don't ask, don't tell" is similar to what is done on military fraternization as well. To change this assumes that military life is like that on the Detroit assembly line, where people can disengage from situations which they find uncomfortable by changing jobs or some other such approach.
How will it be changed? Unless Obama has some brilliant approach in mind (which he has forgotten to explain) the normal change will ultimately drive young, heterosexual men out of the military because they don't like living among the uncloseted homosexual. Unfortunatelly, they probably outnumber the latter by several hundredfold.
You have to understand that to a liberal (yes, I'm generalizing), what should be is more important than what is.
Never mind that just about every person with military experience I've ever talked to will tell you that in their (informed) opinion, eliminating "don't ask don't tell" will cause problems.
Liberals don't care. To them, we should live in a world where homosexuals are accepted. The fact that we don't live in that world and that changing this policy will cause problems for those in the military isn't important to them.
Add to that the fact that many libs really don't have any respect for the military or how it operates or even the fact that screwing with its operations might result in problems can cost people their lives. Again, that isn't as important as trying to force things to be the way they want it to be.
Remember, before Clinton, the mere fact of being homosexual was grounds for dismissal from the Armed Forces. With DADT, commanders could not ask, and the service member could not be compelled to tell. Kind of no harm, no foul, if you will.
However, the GLT (or whatever they call themselves these days) community want to push for gay members to openly serve in the military. The next step will be to push for gay partner "dependent" status....i.e. gay marriage benefits. They are betting that the same societal shift will occur as happened after the military was forcibly integrated.
Now I can't say for sure how the actual military members view this, I'll let them speak for themselves. But I can share with you my experience as a junior officer's wife (many years ago). The spouse's activities, while "volunteer" in nature, are no such thing. As an officer's spouse, one is expected to do certain things in support of the spouse and the unit. (Officers married to other officers present a whole different issue....but think about gay married officers, ouch). I can't imagine how openly gay couples would be accepted in the social environment of the military, but the one thing I'm sure of is it will be a forced acceptance.
That's the thing - I can't help but think libs who are in favor of eliminating DADT really don't give a rat's behind what it does to the military. It is, as you say, all about an agenda.
Maybe if I got the sense that they honestly thought getting rid of DADT would end up being a good thing for the military (in the long run, say - or maybe even in the short), I might view their stand on this issue with a bit more sympathy. But I don't get that sense - at all.
Maybe it's because the liberal mindset is so convoluted, but I could never figure out the problem they have with Don't Ask - Don't Tell. The way Obama approached it in his speech yesterday, you'd think that there are thousands of gays just waiting in line to enlist who are being summarily refused entry into the military. Just goes to show you how ignorant the Wuss-In-Chief is about the military.
I don't mind gays in the military as long as they understand that they don't get any special treatment or accomodation because of their sexual orientation, just like everyone else.
TheHistorian makes some good points above. I'd like to hear a dissenting voice just for the sake of seeing if there's something I'm not considering.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
Mum, the problem that O and the Lefties have is that while in the military, gays have to mask their sexuality. Of course that means that it becomes very difficult for flamboyant gays to enlist because hiding it isn't exactly their forte (think Nathan Lane in The Birdcage).
To the true Leftist, the military won't be right until you have gays running around with pink berets and scarves on complaining that it'd be much better doing 25k road marches if they could sing show tunes along the way.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
The other reason for this attempt at policy shift is because, under the current policy, Gays cannot generally get Basic Allowance for Housing unless they are married or there is a shortage of barracks on post. Allowing openly gay soldiers will pave the way for allowing soldiers to collect housing allowance because they live with their partner. Also, to maintain "fairness", gays would then have to be permitted to apply for Post Housing.
And how would that be verifiable? Well, in an effort to avoid fraud, some form of gay union or gay marriage would have to be implemented, wouldn't it?
This could very well be a way to back door (no pun intended) a path for Gay Marriage.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
The way to handle the Steve Schmidts and Ed Gillespies of the world is to physically run them out of the party! Let the RINOs do like they did in 1980 and run their blue blooder as an independent.
Investors Business Daily has the right take on this:
Tjexcite, Congress will also have to amend the Unifom Code Of Military Justice(UCMJ), to allow the acts that gays/lesbians engage in. They're proscribed right now, so the articles in the UCMJ will have to be changed.
Then, as been said upthread, they'll have to find a way to give them subsidized housing, health care, rations allowances for their "partners", etc. It's not just about serving, it's all about serving "openly", thus giving their lifestyle legitimacy.
You are exactly right! It's all about acceptance - that's the goal.
They would have an easier time if they would just admit: 'Okay, it's not natural or condoned by God (to appease the religious).. but we want certain things like A.. B.. C..'
Eh, I'd still be in opposition, but such a position might appeal to McCainiacs, RINOs, etc., that try so hard to appease the left.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason
Of course Zero will repeal the DADT policy. He is, and has been, actively engaged in the destruction of the US military, just as he's destroying the economy, health care, civil liberties, and all his other activities designed to bring down the Republic. Open homosexuality in the military will prove to be yet another disastrous policy that will play right into the Maobama gameplan. Useful idiots will applaud the move, concerned Americans will mourn the loss of yet another structural factor of American society. Obama must be stopped!
It'll be the utter end of Obama's presidency to house gays in the barracks, won't work...
Okay with that said, shouldn't the reliability of the main combat weapon be of more concern? The troopers that were ambushed by overwhelming #'s in eastern Afghanistan where equipped with a weapon that is prone to failure. The M-4 fails when it's under stress and should be either replaced with a more reliable weapon or modified with a gas piston to eliminate the heat and gas fouling.
Army and Marine line infantry units need a new weapon or a modified version to enhance their reliability. Get the unit armor a block of instruction on fixing the M-16/M-4, send out the parts and do it soon. The only time a weapon fails is when you need it to survive and what's Obama worried about, his voting constituency populating the military.
Not sure he will succeed. His public option is practically dead but his administration keeps beating on it. This revelation by Obama just puts the blue dogs in a bigger squeeze.
Gay issues don't even win in ultraliberal California.
Obama keeps sticking that foot in his mouth. GOP Congress 2010
and I shudder to think it might be something like this. Remember, every time the LOTUS says he's going to do something, there's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a hidden motive behind it. It's a pattern that repeats itself every time he opens his mouth. With me so far?
Most of you seem to agree that while he may have been a Muslim in the past, even though he claims to be a Christian, he still thinks like a Muslim with some of his actions that he does, and if he were truly not of Islam anymore, he wouldn't have bowed to the Saudi King. Not only that, once in Islam, you're in for life.
So having said that, remember when Ack-Mad Ahmadinnerjacket was in town at Columbia University, remember when some of the students asked about the gays in Iran? He said Iran didn't have that "phenomenon" there......because they would be found, tried and executed as per Islamic law.
What if ThatOne is setting up the gays in the military for something that will have them taken out of the picture? It wouldn't be something so obvious at first and with him, it usually never is. I think somehow they are going to be isolated, weeded out, something. I know it seems like a stretch, but this is DuhOne we are talking about here, he says one thing and does the exact opposite.
Took me a few minutes to decide to throw this out there, I know it might be a lot to consider but there's a lot to consider overall when it comes to the actions and lack of actions from this guy.
the communist-in-chief a muslim? a christian? HAH HAH HAH!
The guy hangs out with aged hippies and baby boomer radicals. His mom was a hardcore marxist and so were the men she married. He's a socialist and probably brought up an athiest. He sympathizes with the muslim extremists is because of the common enemy they share with the global left. Also, he feels a connection due to blood with the muslim world even though he is most likely an atheist.
He only joined a church when it became politically expedient to do so. I doubt he could have joined one in DC w/o it being splashed all over the old media. I don't see any evidence of him even occasionally attending one.
Chai
“When all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided...” Thomas Jefferson
Congressional members on a daily basis - they must hear from the ordinary Americans who are THEIR CONSTITUENTS! It is time for the minority to stop setting the agenda! Let our voices be heard - in unison!
This particular speech really irritated me - he can play that he doesn't 'see' or 'know about' those of us who gathered at tea parties, town hall meetings or participated in the 912 project...YET he will give the homosexual community validation by speaking at their event this weekend!
This man is set on destroying every vestige of Americana - whether it is our strong military, our strong communities, our strong churches, or our strong schools & Scouting programs that helped build GOOD character in previous generations! Now this administration has made being patriotic a negative and I, for one, am fed up with this juggler in chief! He is 'fiddling' with so many balls in the air...all while OUR America is burning!
As others have said, members of Congress had better watch their backsides because WE THE PEOPLE are getting fed up with this public shunning! WE WILL vote them right out of office!
DO YOU HEAR US NOW????
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Domestic Right Wing Terrorist! And now by our president as a 'swiftboater' - both titles I'll wear proudly! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
202.224.3121 LET CONGRESS HEAR THE ROAR OF THE SILENT MAJORITY!
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Good luck getting that
October 11, 2009 - 10:59 ET by samhermanmdGood luck getting that through congress. The Blue Dogs are too worried about re-election, and this will be seen as another dodge from the health care, Afghanistan and Iran issues.
Obama is turning into the president of bread and circuses. He uses social issues with little or no impact on more serious questions to deflect attention from his massive failures in the economy and foreign relations. What's next for Obama? He has already done the talk show circuit, so maybe he will become a lounge act or do dinner theater.
Homos can already be in the
October 11, 2009 - 11:10 ET by notonmywatchHomos can already be in the military, but that's not enough for them??? They have to be openly homo too???
What the heck is wrong with these people???????
There is no other reason for this than to demoralize the military.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Baaa-aaa-aaa-rack's new hope
October 12, 2009 - 07:05 ET by AJBI hear Obozo is mandating powered soap in all military installations because it takes longer to pick up.
AJB
October 12, 2009 - 07:13 ET by FeynmanFanROTFLMAO!
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
They want the right...
October 12, 2009 - 10:39 ET by Border Foxto wear camouflage evening gowns to match their Hollywood Blvd. bought eye shadow don't you know! That stuff the "boys" get to wear is just sooooo unflattering to the little darlings! ;-(
They probably also want to prance about on the front line of combat in their specially made pink tu-tu!
Hey on the bright side... Enemy snipers will have an easy target! :)
"If you're a Liberal, anything you say is protected. If you're a Conservative, anything you say is hateful." - Laura Schlessinger
Easy target?
October 12, 2009 - 10:42 ET by Sergeant ROCKPink helmets??
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Re fashion
October 12, 2009 - 11:00 ET by slickwillie2001Good Morning Vietnam; you remember Williams doing the gay guy critiquing army camo?
Well,
October 11, 2009 - 10:59 ET by UpNorthI knew it was coming, sooner rather than later. The president who had to flee to Minnesota to avoid a couple of hundred thousand of his citizens on 9-12, shows up to grovel and promise for a couple hundred of his donors. This isn't about serving, contrary to what the Speechmaker said in his speech, it's about openly serving. Service isn't good enough for the gay rights folks, their lifestyle has to be accepted, along with their service.
What's next, pink stripes for Marine dress blues, pink berets for the army, mauve flight suits for the Air Force?
Mixed emotions always are difficult
October 11, 2009 - 11:03 ET by TheHistorianA bit of philosophy first. The military has people living and working for long periods of time in very close proximity. This kind of proximity can build both strong friendships and strong sexual attractions, both heterosexual and homosexual. Unfortunately, both attractions are not well handled in these situations.
The current "don't ask, don't tell" is similar to what is done on military fraternization as well. To change this assumes that military life is like that on the Detroit assembly line, where people can disengage from situations which they find uncomfortable by changing jobs or some other such approach.
How will it be changed? Unless Obama has some brilliant approach in mind (which he has forgotten to explain) the normal change will ultimately drive young, heterosexual men out of the military because they don't like living among the uncloseted homosexual. Unfortunatelly, they probably outnumber the latter by several hundredfold.
TheHistorian, You have to
October 11, 2009 - 11:21 ET by hydrodynDMTheHistorian,
You have to understand that to a liberal (yes, I'm generalizing), what should be is more important than what is.
Never mind that just about every person with military experience I've ever talked to will tell you that in their (informed) opinion, eliminating "don't ask don't tell" will cause problems.
Liberals don't care. To them, we should live in a world where homosexuals are accepted. The fact that we don't live in that world and that changing this policy will cause problems for those in the military isn't important to them.
Add to that the fact that many libs really don't have any respect for the military or how it operates or even the fact that screwing with its operations might result in problems can cost people their lives. Again, that isn't as important as trying to force things to be the way they want it to be.
hydro: I appreciate your
October 11, 2009 - 11:26 ET by QueenMumhydro: I appreciate your comment. (See my comment below.) Makes sense to me.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
QueenMum, I too would
October 11, 2009 - 11:29 ET by hydrodynDMQueenMum,
I too would like to hear the opposing argument on this from any of our resident dissidents.
I have no direct military experience so I'm more than willing to accept that I might be wrong about this.
You have to look at the agenda
October 11, 2009 - 11:47 ET by BlondeRemember, before Clinton, the mere fact of being homosexual was grounds for dismissal from the Armed Forces. With DADT, commanders could not ask, and the service member could not be compelled to tell. Kind of no harm, no foul, if you will.
However, the GLT (or whatever they call themselves these days) community want to push for gay members to openly serve in the military. The next step will be to push for gay partner "dependent" status....i.e. gay marriage benefits. They are betting that the same societal shift will occur as happened after the military was forcibly integrated.
Now I can't say for sure how the actual military members view this, I'll let them speak for themselves. But I can share with you my experience as a junior officer's wife (many years ago). The spouse's activities, while "volunteer" in nature, are no such thing. As an officer's spouse, one is expected to do certain things in support of the spouse and the unit. (Officers married to other officers present a whole different issue....but think about gay married officers, ouch). I can't imagine how openly gay couples would be accepted in the social environment of the military, but the one thing I'm sure of is it will be a forced acceptance.
Just my $.02.
I hope he fails, too.
Blonde, That's the thing
October 11, 2009 - 13:10 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
That's the thing - I can't help but think libs who are in favor of eliminating DADT really don't give a rat's behind what it does to the military. It is, as you say, all about an agenda.
Maybe if I got the sense that they honestly thought getting rid of DADT would end up being a good thing for the military (in the long run, say - or maybe even in the short), I might view their stand on this issue with a bit more sympathy. But I don't get that sense - at all.
Gays in the military
October 11, 2009 - 11:14 ET by QueenMumMaybe it's because the liberal mindset is so convoluted, but I could never figure out the problem they have with Don't Ask - Don't Tell. The way Obama approached it in his speech yesterday, you'd think that there are thousands of gays just waiting in line to enlist who are being summarily refused entry into the military. Just goes to show you how ignorant the Wuss-In-Chief is about the military.
I don't mind gays in the military as long as they understand that they don't get any special treatment or accomodation because of their sexual orientation, just like everyone else.
TheHistorian makes some good points above. I'd like to hear a dissenting voice just for the sake of seeing if there's something I'm not considering.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
The problem, Mum....
October 11, 2009 - 11:34 ET by Timothy HMum, the problem that O and the Lefties have is that while in the military, gays have to mask their sexuality. Of course that means that it becomes very difficult for flamboyant gays to enlist because hiding it isn't exactly their forte (think Nathan Lane in The Birdcage).
To the true Leftist, the military won't be right until you have gays running around with pink berets and scarves on complaining that it'd be much better doing 25k road marches if they could sing show tunes along the way.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
A path to.......Queenmum....
October 11, 2009 - 11:57 ET by Timothy HThe other reason for this attempt at policy shift is because, under the current policy, Gays cannot generally get Basic Allowance for Housing unless they are married or there is a shortage of barracks on post. Allowing openly gay soldiers will pave the way for allowing soldiers to collect housing allowance because they live with their partner. Also, to maintain "fairness", gays would then have to be permitted to apply for Post Housing.
And how would that be verifiable? Well, in an effort to avoid fraud, some form of gay union or gay marriage would have to be implemented, wouldn't it?
This could very well be a way to back door (no pun intended) a path for Gay Marriage.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. - Albert Einstein
GMTA, Timothy
October 11, 2009 - 12:26 ET by BlondeSee my post above. It's all about the agenda. Gay Marriage.
I hope he fails, too.
Thanks for your comments,
October 12, 2009 - 08:27 ET by QueenMumThanks for your comments, Timothy & Blonde. It's beginning to make sense. I guess I was trying too hard to look at it in practical terms. Silly me. ;)
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
John McCain "Let's let a thousand flowers bloom"
October 11, 2009 - 11:20 ET by lareeJohn McCain weighs in on the tension between Steven Schmidt and Sarah
Palin, and her new book Going Rogue. This interview with John King of
CNN.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/10/john-mccain-lets-let-thousand-flowers.html
(Bangs head on
October 11, 2009 - 11:51 ET by Gary P Jackson(Bangs head on desk....vigorously!)
McCain has lost it. (yeah, like he ever had it)
The way to handle the Steve Schmidts and Ed Gillespies of the world is to physically run them out of the party! Let the RINOs do like they did in 1980 and run their blue blooder as an independent.
Investors Business Daily has the right take on this:
http://www.investors...
October 11, 2009 - 11:20 ET by jessieHI disagree...
October 11, 2009 - 11:42 ET by SickofLibs...I think.
Nobel Peace Surprise
October 11, 2009 - 11:39 ET by dboWith all the hoopla of Obama recieving the Nobel Peace Surprise on Friday few people noticed that the other Nobel awards were announced.
Nobel Prize in Economics: Bernie Madoff
Nobel Prize in literature: Gwen Ifill, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama
Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Michael Jackson's doctor Conrad Murray
Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology: Track star Caster Semenya
Nobel Prize in Physics: Engineers of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota
Universal Service Fund/Lifeline-Free Cell Phones
October 11, 2009 - 11:48 ET by RR GOPAnybody else keeping track of this welfare program? Don't see it mentioned at all on Fox News, nor the big conservative forums I visit.
Looks like they're trying to expand it to broadband service, and I can only imagine that free computers aren't far behind.
Apparently those who can afford cell phones are charged state and federal taxes to pay for those who can't...I'm not sure about broadband/cable fees.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Just another promise with an expire date.
October 11, 2009 - 12:07 ET by TjexciteJust another promise with an expire date.
He can stop it by a stork of his pen in a Executive Order as CIC. Then send it back to congress to make the approbate law changes
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 37 > § 654
Is here by rescinded.
But he will not do it. Just a campaign promise that he can not cash.
Not quite
October 12, 2009 - 12:00 ET by UpNorthTjexcite, Congress will also have to amend the Unifom Code Of Military Justice(UCMJ), to allow the acts that gays/lesbians engage in. They're proscribed right now, so the articles in the UCMJ will have to be changed.
Then, as been said upthread, they'll have to find a way to give them subsidized housing, health care, rations allowances for their "partners", etc. It's not just about serving, it's all about serving "openly", thus giving their lifestyle legitimacy.
Legitimate Lifestyles
October 12, 2009 - 12:05 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou are exactly right! It's all about acceptance - that's the goal.
They would have an easier time if they would just admit: 'Okay, it's not natural or condoned by God (to appease the religious).. but we want certain things like A.. B.. C..'
Eh, I'd still be in opposition, but such a position might appeal to McCainiacs, RINOs, etc., that try so hard to appease the left.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Of course he will....
October 11, 2009 - 12:21 ET by AZTech2020Of course Zero will repeal the DADT policy. He is, and has been, actively engaged in the destruction of the US military, just as he's destroying the economy, health care, civil liberties, and all his other activities designed to bring down the Republic. Open homosexuality in the military will prove to be yet another disastrous policy that will play right into the Maobama gameplan. Useful idiots will applaud the move, concerned Americans will mourn the loss of yet another structural factor of American society. Obama must be stopped!
Just what are Obama's priorities???
October 11, 2009 - 14:57 ET by Roscoe MendagoIt'll be the utter end of Obama's presidency to house gays in the barracks, won't work...
Okay with that said, shouldn't the reliability of the main combat weapon be of more concern? The troopers that were ambushed by overwhelming #'s in eastern Afghanistan where equipped with a weapon that is prone to failure. The M-4 fails when it's under stress and should be either replaced with a more reliable weapon or modified with a gas piston to eliminate the heat and gas fouling.
Army and Marine line infantry units need a new weapon or a modified version to enhance their reliability. Get the unit armor a block of instruction on fixing the M-16/M-4, send out the parts and do it soon. The only time a weapon fails is when you need it to survive and what's Obama worried about, his voting constituency populating the military.
Not sure he will succeed.
October 11, 2009 - 12:41 ET by NonArabOmarNot sure he will succeed. His public option is practically dead but his administration keeps beating on it. This revelation by Obama just puts the blue dogs in a bigger squeeze.
Gay issues don't even win in ultraliberal California.
Obama keeps sticking that foot in his mouth. GOP Congress 2010
There might be a different reason
October 11, 2009 - 13:45 ET by jon_torlinand I shudder to think it might be something like this. Remember, every time the LOTUS says he's going to do something, there's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a hidden motive behind it. It's a pattern that repeats itself every time he opens his mouth. With me so far?
Most of you seem to agree that while he may have been a Muslim in the past, even though he claims to be a Christian, he still thinks like a Muslim with some of his actions that he does, and if he were truly not of Islam anymore, he wouldn't have bowed to the Saudi King. Not only that, once in Islam, you're in for life.
So having said that, remember when Ack-Mad Ahmadinnerjacket was in town at Columbia University, remember when some of the students asked about the gays in Iran? He said Iran didn't have that "phenomenon" there......because they would be found, tried and executed as per Islamic law.
What if ThatOne is setting up the gays in the military for something that will have them taken out of the picture? It wouldn't be something so obvious at first and with him, it usually never is. I think somehow they are going to be isolated, weeded out, something. I know it seems like a stretch, but this is DuhOne we are talking about here, he says one thing and does the exact opposite.
Took me a few minutes to decide to throw this out there, I know it might be a lot to consider but there's a lot to consider overall when it comes to the actions and lack of actions from this guy.
Possible? Impossible?
-Jon
the communist-in-chief a
October 11, 2009 - 15:14 ET by NonArabOmarthe communist-in-chief a muslim? a christian? HAH HAH HAH!
The guy hangs out with aged hippies and baby boomer radicals. His mom was a hardcore marxist and so were the men she married. He's a socialist and probably brought up an athiest. He sympathizes with the muslim extremists is because of the common enemy they share with the global left. Also, he feels a connection due to blood with the muslim world even though he is most likely an atheist.
→ Tru Dat Omar
October 11, 2009 - 15:17 ET by Cool ArrowAmericans paid no heed to the symptoms during the election.
Christian?
October 11, 2009 - 18:08 ET by ChaitealoverHe only joined a church when it became politically expedient to do so. I doubt he could have joined one in DC w/o it being splashed all over the old media. I don't see any evidence of him even occasionally attending one.
Chai
“When all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided...” Thomas Jefferson
The time has come when we must all make it OUR duty to call our
October 11, 2009 - 18:41 ET by Cape ConservativeCongressional members on a daily basis - they must hear from the ordinary Americans who are THEIR CONSTITUENTS! It is time for the minority to stop setting the agenda! Let our voices be heard - in unison!
This particular speech really irritated me - he can play that he doesn't 'see' or 'know about' those of us who gathered at tea parties, town hall meetings or participated in the 912 project...YET he will give the homosexual community validation by speaking at their event this weekend!
This man is set on destroying every vestige of Americana - whether it is our strong military, our strong communities, our strong churches, or our strong schools & Scouting programs that helped build GOOD character in previous generations! Now this administration has made being patriotic a negative and I, for one, am fed up with this juggler in chief! He is 'fiddling' with so many balls in the air...all while OUR America is burning!
As others have said, members of Congress had better watch their backsides because WE THE PEOPLE are getting fed up with this public shunning! WE WILL vote them right out of office!
DO YOU HEAR US NOW????
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Domestic Right Wing Terrorist! And now by our president as a 'swiftboater' - both titles I'll wear proudly! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
202.224.3121 LET CONGRESS HEAR THE ROAR OF THE SILENT MAJORITY!
202.456.1111 WHITE HOUSE COMMENT LINE
Good Idea Cape
October 11, 2009 - 18:45 ET by Free StinkerGood Idea Cape, however since the main switchboard may be bust folks can look up the DIECT number to their Senators here: Senate.gov
anyone else watching NBC?
October 11, 2009 - 19:24 ET by Candance MooreHubby is making me watch the football game. Am I the only one who saw that promo with the lesbian kiss?
Two women were kissing on TV and I missed it ?
October 11, 2009 - 20:25 ET by Free StinkerGood ! I don't want to see that garbage.
Can't say I'm surprised at the sad state of TV these days.
Openly Gay in the
October 11, 2009 - 19:31 ET by jkwtradingOpenly Gay in the military...might well bring a new meaning to "cocked and locked"
~EEIS, people
October 11, 2009 - 20:11 ET by choselife3xThat is all.
Kossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.
Dave is back online.
October 11, 2009 - 20:15 ET by R D Helm:-)
-Dave
→ Comments from ex servicemembers?
October 12, 2009 - 07:20 ET by Cool ArrowI served with openly gay service members back in '72, '73.
It wasn't a big deal. They're Americans too. I guess I'll just have to rely on personal experience and my own sense of what it means to be patriotic.
When they were feeding the meatgrinder, the Military didn't care.
Openly?
October 12, 2009 - 07:29 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, what the hell exactly does that mean? Running around the barracks in a speedo and flip-flops? And how is this being suppressed?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
→ No
October 12, 2009 - 07:33 ET by Cool ArrowBut but they did gussy up with the eye shadow and lipstick before going out for the evening. I just figured that was the Military.
The CO on down knew they were gay, though that wasn't the term for them yet.
Must've been the Navy
October 12, 2009 - 07:47 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat wouldn't be tolerated in the Army. The commander would've been relieved.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Not in the Navy I served
October 12, 2009 - 07:49 ET by FeynmanFanNot in the Navy I served in.
"Reason and persuasion are the only practical instruments against error. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged" - Thomas Jefferson
→ Whatever you say
October 12, 2009 - 08:45 ET by Cool ArrowBut it was the Army, and one of our SSGs was gay too. Though that one was just, kinda known. He wasn't open.
You don't say?
October 12, 2009 - 08:53 ET by Sergeant ROCKWell, not in the Army I serve.
The commander would've been relieved in any command that I've been in.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason