MSNBC host David Shuster on Wednesday criticized President Obama from the left, calling him hypocritical for leaving the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in place, despite a campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. Shuster singled out Obama in his "Hypocrisy Watch" series, complaining, "But, here we are, more than four months into your administration and the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy remains in place." Referencing a gay soldier who was forced out, he derided, "To continue to kick out soldiers like Daniel Choi, to continue 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' four months into your presidency, that's hypocrisy and it's wrong."
Shuster's targets on "Hypocrisy Watch" are mostly conservatives and Republicans. But, going after a Democrat for not being liberal enough isn't balance. An April 6 MRC fax report found that the MSNBC host, on his now defunct program "1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," singled out politicians on the right 71 percent of the time. When he did go after liberals, such as Barack Obama, it was usually from the left:
Shuster did target President Obama on January 30 for putting lobbyists into his government after pledging the opposite as a candidate, and again on March 17 and 30 for failing to be tough enough on business, a routine complaint from the left-wing blogosphere. But conservative complaints about the Obama administration — such as dishonestly claiming $1.6 trillion in Iraq war savings over the next decade by using the troop surge as a baseline — were utterly ignored.
On June 1 and 2, Shuster slammed Newt Gingrich and former Vice President Dick Cheney in the "Hypocrisy Watch" segment. And neither of them were criticized for failing to be conservative enough.
A transcript of the June 3 "MSNBC News Live" segment, which aired at 4:48pm, follows:
DAVID SHUSTER: The Obama administration continues to enforce the policy towards gay service members known as "Don't ask, Don't Tell." And that takes us to tonight's "Hypocrisy Watch." First the background. During his presidential campaign, then-candidate Obama repeatedly spoke about the important contributions of all soldiers who are willing to serve. And he vowed to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" once he entered office. He told the Military Times, quote, "I think that at a time when we are pressed, we should have an attitude of all hands on deck. If we can't field enough Arab linguists, we shouldn't be preventing an Arab linguist from serving his or her country because of what they do in private. I think retired Army General John Shalikashvili's assessment is right, that people's attitudes have evolved. You've got our British counterparts and Israeli counterparts without this policy, and nobody would suggest that they have had problems on the ground." That's true, Mr. President. The Brits and the Israelis have not had problems on the ground. And listen to what your own press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said during a web chat with ordinary Americans just a few days before your administration took office.
ROBERT GIBBS: Thaddeus from Lancing, Michigan asks, "Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy?' Thaddeus, you don't hear a politician give a one word answer much, but it's yes.
SHUSTER: And it was perfectly clear, Mr. President, you promised on the campaign to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and your spokesman said that you would keep the promise. But, here we are, more than four months into your administration and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy remains in place. And since you took office, more than 200 members of the military have been discharged simply because they told the truth about their sexual orientation. That's right, more than 200 servicemen, including Arabic translator, Lieutenant Daniel Choi.
DANIEL CHOI: The letter that came to me basically said that your honesty, your honesty about who you are is grounds enough to kick you out. We're in a time of war. You have skills that can be useful for your team. Doesn't matter.
SHUSTER: Earlier this week, Mr. President, your White House issue a proclamation for LGBT Pride Month. You noted your administration has worked to advance a wide range of initiatives, including ending the "existing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in a way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." Note the caveat, "in a way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." Does it mean that getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," as you promised, would weaken our armed forces? Mr. President, there's nothing wrong with wanting to study the issue or wanting to consult your military advisors. But, that's not what you promoted during the campaign. As you said back then, "We are in a time of war. We need all hands on deck. We need Arabic linguists." To continue to kick out soldiers like Daniel Choi, to continue "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" four months into your presidency, that's hypocrisy and it's wrong.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well said, Shuster. Well
June 3, 2009 - 16:53 ET by JasonCWell said, Shuster. Well said.
By the way, New Hampshire, welcome to the club!
It won't be long now, Jason.
June 3, 2009 - 17:53 ET by Another Dead KennedyIt won't be long now, Jason. Marriage and military in all 50 by the end of the first term.
Get a room already
June 3, 2009 - 18:14 ET by BlondeOr sign up so you can have buddy fun in the barracks.
I hope he fails, too.
Are you really starting
June 3, 2009 - 18:26 ET by Another Dead KennedyAre you really starting this? Sorry, but I'm already married to my beautiful wife, and am much too old to join the military.
Goody for you
June 3, 2009 - 18:28 ET by BlondeApplauding that which the majority of the population doesn't condone.....yeah sure, I'm starting that up.
But you liberals publicly smooching here is just gross.
And of course you are too old to serve, not that it would have ever occured to you anyway. Typical.
I hope he fails, too.
Oh Blonde, you're just the
June 3, 2009 - 18:34 ET by JasonCOh Blonde, you're just the living end...finding something erotic about two posters (out of what, 600?) who don't feel affronted by gay marriage happening to be the first two to post here.
So, did you serve in the military? I can't recall.
And while it may be true that I would not want to be in the military, I can assure you they wouldn't want me either. I follow directions badly, have issues with authority, and can't hit a barn door with a scoped .22
Applauding that which the majority of the population doesn't condone
New Hampshire, like my beloved Vermont, did it through the legislature, not the courts. So even that little argument won't fly here. And since when is it abhorrent to applaud something that isn't the most popular?
Convoluted Liberal Logic, Redux
June 3, 2009 - 18:49 ET by BlondePopulation of New Hampshire: 1,315,809
Population of Florida: 18,328,340
Population of California: 36,756,666
Care to try that failure of a population argument again?
<Edit> For the liberals in Loma Linda (or Port St. Lucie).....both California and Florida said no to gay marriage, via ballot initiatives. Hmmmmm.
I hope he fails, too.
And here I thought you
June 3, 2009 - 18:55 ET by JasonCAnd here I thought you conservatives, in your ever so lucid logic, wanted to delegate such decisions to the states.
Besides which...what did I argue about population?
I'll be honest, if necessary, I hope every state supreme court legalizes gay marriage even if it does go against the will of the people, because it's not The People's business to tell other people they can't enter into a beneficial legal arrangement which doesn't affect The People one iota. But I'd prefer it be done through legislative channels just so conservatives can't bitch and moan about how their will was subverted.
Its called TYRANNY Jason!!!!
June 3, 2009 - 19:02 ET by BEGRUNT"I hope every state supreme court legalizes gay marriage even if it does
go against the will of the people, because it's not The People's
business to tell other people they can't enter into a beneficial legal
arrangement which doesn't affect The People one iota."
That is ruling by judicial fiat!!!! And UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!! The court DOES NOT MAKE LAW!!!!!! If the voters say NO...then it's NO!!!!!
As I carefully check to be
June 3, 2009 - 19:06 ET by JasonCAs I carefully check to be sure caps lock is off, I'll reply only that The People do not vote on every single point of law. The courts do decide some things. The bestowal of a basic civil right, I am arguing, is one of these things. You may call it what you like. There is no legitimate argument - not one - for banning gay marriage, and the purpose of voting is not for a discriminatory majority to dictate what rights a minority may or may not share in.
basic civil right?
June 3, 2009 - 19:13 ET by botgjase, you have the right to remain silent
as to marriage it's not a right you idiot. Since when does anyone need a liscense for a right?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Oh wow Botg, is this really
June 3, 2009 - 22:05 ET by JasonCOh wow Botg, is this really the route you want to go down? Because you know, most states require that you be licensed in order to keep and bear a firearm, and I don't know too many conservatives who consider that a government-granted privilege rather than an inalienable right.
Just because the right of having access to a social institution is regulated by licensure doesn't make it okay to arbitrarily exclude a large portion of the population from it.
Nope
June 3, 2009 - 22:14 ET by general companyBecause you know, most states require that you be licensed in order to keep and bear a firearm,
In fact I cant think of a single one
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
It may not be called a
June 4, 2009 - 07:01 ET by JasonCIt may not be called a "license" in all cases. I believe in some states the purchase of a "concealable" weapon requires a sherrif's permit. But the effect is identical. Some people can, for a plethora of reasons, be denied the privilege of gun ownership. So, since you have to submit paperwork and undergo a waiting period, and have your status decided upon by a governing body, is it safe to say that gun ownership, too, is not a "right"?
you are talking about
June 13, 2009 - 19:58 ET by amberyou are talking about publicly carrying a firearm, not purchasing and owning one. Actually, in my state you do not need a permit to purchase a firearm as long as it is not a pistol. Even then, you do not need a permit for each one and none of the purchases are recorded, no serial numbers, nothing. They just want to know you are not a lunatic or a criminal.
Did you ever take..............
June 3, 2009 - 19:17 ET by BEGRUNTa civics course in school?.....or did you ditch during that course?? What branch of government makes law????? And its NOT the judicial branch.
BTW....I WILL USE CAPS WHEN I SEE STUPIDITY IN ACTION!!!!!!!
Supreme courts can deem an
June 3, 2009 - 22:07 ET by JasonCSupreme courts can deem an act or bill to be unlawful/unconstitutional - such as the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.
But legality and procedural issues notwithstanding, I wouldn't mind if a few more states legalized gay marriage throught the courts just for the fun of watching anti-gay types get all indignant about it from behind the veneer of being ever-so-protective of judicial checks and balances.
Not if it isnt.....................
June 3, 2009 - 22:37 ET by BEGRUNTenumerated in the Constitution!!!!! The Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution as it was written........to interpret laws passed by the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.......NOT judicial fiat!!!! Gee got to read up on that thar civics course I missed..........
Do you think a judge can
June 3, 2009 - 23:51 ET by JerDo you think a judge can simply wake up some morning and say, "Gee, I think I'll issue an order today allowing gays to marry."?
If two gays apply for a marriage license and it is rejected, there must be a legal reason for that denial. In other words, there must be a statutory basis for that action, i.e. a law. If the applicants believe that law to be unconstitutional, they can file a complaint so alleging. The losing party can appeal it all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and if the justices believe there is a constitutional issue raised and other prerequisites are met, they can agree to hear the case. Otherwise, the decision of the court to which the case was last appealed will stand. If that decision overturned the state law which had effectively prohibited gay marriage, then that will become the law after the legislature writes one conforming to the findings of the court--regardless of the opinion of the majority of the citizens in the state.
Jer
Epic win for Jer. Well
June 4, 2009 - 19:16 ET by JasonCEpic win for Jer.
Well done.
→ Jer
June 4, 2009 - 19:22 ET by Cool ArrowI'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.
So what you're saying is that a higher court can't reach down as low as it wants into the appeals chain to hear a case before the next court in the chain does?
I was under the impression they could.
Do I stand corrected?
"The Rule of Law is the only thing that separates us from Democrats" - a Firefighter
Cool.. Certainly not on
June 4, 2009 - 20:53 ET by JerCool..
Certainly not on it's own volition. But you may be referring to a situation where a case pending, for example, in a lower federal court and a constitutional issue arises, a party may file a petetion for a writ of certiorari directly to the Supreme Court for resolution, and if four [I think] justices agree, they will grant cert to consider the issue, otherwise cert will be denied.
Jer
→ That's it, Jer
June 4, 2009 - 21:03 ET by Cool ArrowThe only procedure I coule remember from Civics class was Stare Decisis which I knew was just leaving it lie.
"The Rule of Law is the only thing that separates us from Democrats" - a Firefighter
Prop 8, anyone?
June 4, 2009 - 19:25 ET by CobraManOr, the citizens of a State can, through a referendum, force a legislature to enact a law and the courts can overturn such legislation as being unconstitutional.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
True, CobraMan...
June 4, 2009 - 19:34 ET by JerTrue, CobraMan...
Jer
roe v wade just kills your
June 13, 2009 - 20:03 ET by amberroe v wade just kills your argument. there is no right to abortion in the constitution and what is not in the constitution goes to the states to decide, but the supreme crt found a right were none exists.
true, but that is not what
June 13, 2009 - 20:00 ET by ambertrue, but that is not what happens most of the time.
Epic Fail, Jason
June 3, 2009 - 19:03 ET by BlondeApplauding that which the majority of the population doesn't condone
New Hampshire, like my beloved Vermont, did it through the legislature, not the courts. So even that little argument won't fly here. And since when is it abhorrent to applaud something that isn't the most popular?
You took my statement and then tried to spin it out that the enactment of gay marriage by a state legislature was a refutation of popular opinion. TS, you lose.
I knew there was a reason why I no longer care to engage you....your liberal insanity overtakes any little bit of logic you ever had.
I hope he fails, too.
You could at least finish
June 3, 2009 - 19:13 ET by JasonCYou could at least finish the quotation. You imply that it's aberrant to champion something that is not embraced by the majority. I pointed out in return that that's pretty ludicrous. your exact words: "Goody for you: Applauding that which the majority of the population doesn't condone.....yeah sure, I'm starting that up."
I didn't say anything about population. You demonstrated your admirable Googling skills by proving that FL and CA are more populous than NH. You failed to explain why this is significant.
You took my statement and then tried to spin it out that the enactment
of gay marriage by a state legislature was a refutation of popular
opinion. TS, you lose.
No, quite the opposite in fact. I'm implying that enactment of gay marriage by a state legislature is a vindication of popular opinion.
I knew there was a reason why I no longer care to engage you
I think it had something to do with Mel Gibson. At any rate...here we are.
Liberal Math, eh?
June 3, 2009 - 19:16 ET by BlondeYou're making this argument in a representative form of government? And furthermore argue for judicial override of legally constituted preferences of the populace where the outcome doesn't go your way?
Ta ta, Jason.
P.S. you dope.....I didn't "finish" the quotation because I copy/pasted YOUR post you dumbass.
I hope he fails, too.
"Dope," "dumbass." Very
June 3, 2009 - 19:20 ET by balboa"Dope," "dumbass." Very logical, not emotional at all.
Leave it alone, Balboa
June 3, 2009 - 19:27 ET by BlondeOr would you care to bring on an argument with some substance for once in your life?
I hope he fails, too.
A substantive argument being
June 3, 2009 - 19:30 ET by balboaA substantive argument being something you don't recognize.
Really?
June 3, 2009 - 19:33 ET by BlondeA substantative argument from you is something I've NEVER seen on this site.....so why don't you give it a try instead of your usual snark, eh Bal?
If not, I understand.
I hope he fails, too.
bal
June 3, 2009 - 19:39 ET by MrShyYou almost never post more than a single sentence or paragraph, seriously.
I sometimes interject like you do, with my brand of snark, but once I'm pulled in I ENGAGE and start typing/expressing more. When someone starts to put more into their posts, it's usually parallel with an increase in substance. I really never see you do this.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Well I shouldn't have
June 3, 2009 - 19:44 ET by balboaWell I shouldn't have bothered with Blonde, but sometimes I can't help myself. As for substantive discussions, c'mon. I've been all over this site this week, debating all kinds of issues.
And the # of paragraphs doesn't mean a better argument. Just look at anything "Acts" posts.
Really, Bal?
June 3, 2009 - 20:01 ET by BlondeYou are truly one little lilly-livered liberal, fella.
I notice how you totally ducked my challenge, not once but twice.....so I'm betting on you going for the ducking trifecta here tonight.
I hope he fails, too.
Great to see you again Blonde
June 3, 2009 - 21:30 ET by general companyBut Bal refuses to answer any questions.
He is taking Obama's lead on openness I guess?
But it is really good to see you, to bad about the Gator girls, I was shocked to be honest, congrates to the Huskies Ladies
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Sorry, GC. I didn't mean to
June 3, 2009 - 22:16 ET by balboaSorry, GC. I didn't mean to ignore your question. You actually debate. I'll answer right now.
OK good
June 3, 2009 - 23:06 ET by general companyBut I am not holding my breath, btw invite Shawn too
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
So Typical
June 3, 2009 - 23:13 ET by BlondeYou "didn't mean to ignore" someone else's question....but you (yet again) ignored my challenge to you to put up something FOR ONCE that had some substance. After you of course had yet again laid down a bunch of snarky stuff......you should be banned for being so bloody banal, bal.
Typical liberal lilly-liver lies. Why don't you just get a little icon, with a tongue sticking out, and an idea-baloon with "nya-nya-nya". It would be far more efficacious than your usual crap.
Yeah, bal, I used the word "crap". Ponder it.
I hope he fails, too.
I keep waiting for the liberal brain to
June 4, 2009 - 00:55 ET by general companyShort circuit, but they just seem to reset at "hi my name is Ron, but everyone calls me Mo. I dont know why"
But yet they continue what is a simple guy supposed to do?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
For someone who made false
June 4, 2009 - 01:20 ET by JerFor someone who made false accusations the other night and refused to back them up with even a shred of evidence, you have a lot of nerve.
O'Reilly can take care of himself. What you engaged in was a flat-out smear. Naked assertions with no proof, no examples, no quotes, no nothing--and you were referring to statements I had supposedly made that very night. You want me to dredge up O'Reilly's comments from over seven years ago.
Jer
It never stops with you does it Jer
June 4, 2009 - 19:07 ET by general companySo you cant make your arguments, so you trash me instead. Go back to the thread were I accused you of bad things, link it when you trash me so others may decide for themselves.
You insinuate hypotheticals of what others have plainly stated. You make claims you cannot back up, you make false claims about others in order to distract from the current issue. Jer I find you to be less then forthright. I have given you every opportunity to come clean, but yet you insist on continuing these delusional and ridiculous accusations.
But I dont mind, this is my fun, to prove you and other liberals to be either completely wrong, or hypocrites. I am fearless
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Gray-haired hippies
June 4, 2009 - 19:15 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat's the deal? Did they move Matlock to another time slot?
"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
We have trashed each other,
June 4, 2009 - 19:18 ET by JerWe have trashed each other, fearless one. I stated my recollections of O'Reilly. You made completely false and unsupported accusations about me the other day.
But, I stopped last night, and it has been you who can't seem to do likewise. How about we both just let it go?
Jer
You're making this argument
June 3, 2009 - 19:20 ET by JasonCYou're making this argument in a representative form of government?
That tends to be what conservatives respect, if only begrudgingly, yes. But otherwise, yes, in this issue, I am for judicial override.
P.S. you dope.....I didn't "finish" the quotation because I copy/pasted YOUR post you dumbass.
No kidding....
i think we need a judicial over-ride on giving the vote to
June 3, 2009 - 19:27 ET by botgnon landowners
point is where do you ground what is allowed a tyranny of black robes and what isn't?
Basically your argument is whatever YOU want by any means, trust me that dog will bite you in the ass
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg
June 3, 2009 - 19:32 ET by MrShyThank you. JasonC and liberals (but not all... again, quietly, many liberals tolerate gays -- as almost all of us do -- but want to draw some line) want to strong-arm the populace when it doesn't get what it wants.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
I think the framers of the
June 3, 2009 - 19:35 ET by JerI think the framers of the Constitution did a pretty good job on the checks and balances issue, botg.
Maybe you better stick to lecturing members about theological matters. This doesn't appear to be your strong suit.
Jer
oh yeah the framers had it right
June 3, 2009 - 19:47 ET by botgespecially with the tenth ammendment.
Care to actually read it and explain just exactly how it has not been turned on it's ear by liberal activist judicial rulings?
plus you forget the final check is only when the people retake that which is theirs and theirs alone. Remember consent of the governed...
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
oh, and Jer
June 3, 2009 - 19:51 ET by botgcheck your sarc meter it's wasted there dude
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Will do, Reverend.
June 3, 2009 - 20:00 ET by JerWill do, Reverend.
Jer
see i deliberately
June 3, 2009 - 20:04 ET by botgpicked an issue "landowners only vote" which is both historic and would be immediately objected to. You seemed to miss the sarc and the point then wiffed completely on Enumerated Powers.
Three strikes two posts, a new record even for you
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
What makes you think I
June 3, 2009 - 20:20 ET by JerWhat makes you think I don't agree with my hero Bill Buckley's view?
Jer
By the way, Cardozo, there were two or three couses in my law curriculum which I found pretty boring. However, Constitutional Law was not one of those.
It's a pretty simple
June 3, 2009 - 20:05 ET by JasonCIt's a pretty simple criteria. The judicial branch should be able to intervene on matters which involve the rights of a group of people when said rights are being denied by a larger group which has no legitimate interest in that denial.
rights? again?
June 3, 2009 - 20:10 ET by botgwhat rights?
marriage license Jase
since when does any get a license for a right?
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
A man and a woman above the
June 3, 2009 - 20:14 ET by JasonCA man and a woman above the age of 18, provided they're not already married and pass state-mandated blood tests, have pretty much no impediment to getting a marriage license. That's pretty smooth sailing. It's a right in that no body of voters can decide that our hypothetical straight couple can't get married, no?
I totally agree, anyone who
June 13, 2009 - 20:11 ET by amberI totally agree, anyone who takes the earned income tax credit (and welfare) should not get the opportunity to vote. If you are taking the people's money to support your lifestyle then you should not get to vote on ho the people spend their money. It is a choice, the $5,000 or the right to participate in our republican government....I would also bar eic takers from holding any government office or job, they are already getting government dollars, give it to someone who pays taxes.
Thread wideder?
June 4, 2009 - 01:05 ET by general companyMy Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
B... That would be Rio
June 3, 2009 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerB...
That would be Rio Linda. (in your reference to Rush and town which I use here often.) ;-)
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Mea Culpa
June 3, 2009 - 19:07 ET by BlondeI've been out of the country for a month and speaking another language....the culture shock, you know.
However, Port St. Lucie....well....you'd have to see it. Truly.
I hope he fails, too.
bt,
June 3, 2009 - 19:11 ET by Chris NormanHey! As an ex-Sacramentan, I can attest that Rio Linda is a gorgeous and classy suburb that anyone would be proud to - no, I can't go on without laughing - most of it is a dump. :)
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris... Lol...no you can't
June 3, 2009 - 19:13 ET by bigtimerChris...
Lol...no you can't with me anyway...of course it has been a good numbers of years since I've been there...but my brother lived on the outskirts...I remember Rio Linda well.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt,Rio Linda: where the
June 3, 2009 - 19:20 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Rio Linda: where the carports are used for storage and domestic violence spilling out of the kitchen and the yards are used to park cars.
Actually, some parts of it have developed a little more nicely in recent years, but it's still not an address one brags about - it's still pretty rough. :)
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Chris... Yeah, my brother
June 3, 2009 - 19:24 ET by bigtimerChris...
Yeah, my brother moved on to Pollock Pines...not far from Placerville.
I still crack up laughing at the name of that little enclave...'Pollock Pines' just to get him a rise out of him now and then...it's a beautiful area...or was the last time I was there.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt, It's a beautiful
June 3, 2009 - 19:49 ET by Chris Normanbt,
It's a beautiful area. My sister is moving down here to NM next month (she took early retirement) from Placerville. I remember when Placerville was considered a tough "biker town". Now, it's this quaintly livable town with a downtown straight out of Main Street USA Disneyland - things do change sometime for the better.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Yep Chris, Placerville is
June 3, 2009 - 20:06 ET by bigtimerYep Chris, Placerville is gorgeous in my opinion...I would love to move there...my Dad lived there for years, until he died actually.
If I ever thought my home state was ever even close of getting it's sh!t together, that is where I would love to spend my end years too.
Now...on a happier note...have you seen all of this...BOR had part of it on his show...the words/political critters in it are great.
Now come on some of you...this is Rap...it's done by conservatives....well, heck, I got a big kick out of it...and like I said earlier on OT...hope does spring eternal.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Blond, what does "through
June 13, 2009 - 19:54 ET by amberBlond, what does "through the legislature mean?" Does that mean they did it differently that California, the people vote? Does it mean that the elected legislatures played politics instead of listening to what the majority of their voters actuall want? That is kind of what I take from that.
JasonC
June 4, 2009 - 19:29 ET by CobraMan"I follow directions badly, have issues with authority, and can't hit a barn door with a scoped .22 "
You could always become a cook. Don't worry about that "issues with authority" problem, basic training will cure you of that in a hurry.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
I do like to cook, but it
June 4, 2009 - 19:33 ET by JasonCI do like to cook, but it generally involves sautee pans and EVOO, not 20 gallon stock pots.
Can't say I want to be cured of it...certainly not by force.
Volunteerrs are never forced.
June 4, 2009 - 19:52 ET by CobraManYou wouldn't be "cured" by force, not when you volunteer to serve. That's called a commitment.
Also , not all cooking is done in "20 gallon stock pots." A lot of the cooking is done to order, like whether you want your eggs scrambled, over0-easy, or "sunny side up." it's more akin to working in a large restaurant than what you seen on old WWII movies, or Apocalypse Now.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Well I do scramble a mean
June 4, 2009 - 21:00 ET by JasonCWell I do scramble a mean egg. I'll look into it.
Here ya go, Blonde
June 13, 2009 - 19:24 ET by AmericanThinkerA Nov. 19-21 [ 2003] CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll* asked Americans the same question the NBC/Wall Street Journal asked 1993: "Do you favor or oppose allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military?" Sixty-three percent of Americans favor allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, and about a third (32%) oppose it.
Who did they poll? What
June 13, 2009 - 19:41 ET by amberWho did they poll? What were the questions that led them to that conclusion? I have a very hard time believing that data, especially since CALIFORNIA just said no to gay marriage. I have seen too many skewed polls. Often liberals are polled at a 20% or more higher rate than conservatives, far from the true make up of the country. Aslo, the questions, often times, are odd and very leading.
Ditto for me on the first
June 3, 2009 - 18:29 ET by JasonCDitto for me on the first point, borderline on the second. But I'll be darned if I don't keep forgetting that having an ethical stance on gay rights makes me gay myself. Good thing I have NBers to remind me, right?
Also, Kennedy, I couldn't tell from your first reply to me if your belief about gay rights by the end of Obama's first term was an enthusiastic or condemnatory one. Not that you necessarily have to take an absolutist stance on it, I just thought Blonde might have jumped the gun.
JasonC
June 3, 2009 - 18:43 ET by MrShySo you're implying that people who believe that the institution of marriage and it's definition needs to remain as it's always been, between opposite sexes, for a variety of very valid reasons, is an.... unethical stance?
You're also implying that soldiers who are fine with people of any sexual preference serving in the military, as long as we don't need to know it, is an.... unethical stance?
Liberals taking their "ethical stances" cracks me up, every time.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Better than a "wide" one, I
June 3, 2009 - 18:49 ET by JasonCBetter than a "wide" one, I suppose. But I kid.
I happen to think that the argument for a strict definition of "traditional marriage" is devoid of ethical justification, but I am of course biased insofar as I strenuously disagree with it. I have yet to see anyone advance an argument against gay marriage which I have been able to take seriously, at any rate.
soldiers who are fine with people of any sexual preference serving in
the military, as long as we don't need to know it, is an.... unethical
stance?
Your premise is paradoxical. How can they "be fine" with people of any sexual preference when those people are not allowed to avow it? I mean, I'm perfectly fine with serial killers right up until I realize that's what they are. And besides which, one of the most pervasive justifications for "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has been that, in fact, soldiers will not be fine with it, that it will affect them negatively, and so forth. Which, in my mind, doesn't seem to be giving our troops much credit; they can live and fight terrorists thousands of miles from home and comprise the greatest fighting force in world history, but a couple of openly gay soldiers will be direly disruptive. Doesn't seem likely.
JasonC
June 3, 2009 - 19:11 ET by MrShy"I have yet to see anyone advance an argument against gay marriage which I have been able to take seriously, at any rate."
The argument is, marriage is a man, a woman, the two of them usually fornicating and producing a family, and raising children with a male and female (balanced) upbringing. It all gets turned upside down when you start going outside the box -- like a man and a man, or woman and a woman -- of the structure.... of.... marriage.... as it was founded on.
JasonC, the whole thing is unnatural. Being black is not unnatural, being a woman in society is not unnatural. Sorry, but having sex -- with the same sex -- get this: MOST PEOPLE SEE THAT as unnatural (I know, we're just "crazy" :p) We can all, within the laws, do whatever we please, but it's just common sense stuff here.
So, really? Why are you such a stealth advocate to start redefining what marriage is? How is a gay man or woman not married disadvantageous for them, when they can live together, have civil unions, and do everything else they want to do, freely? Where's your strong argument?
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
It's unnatural in that it
June 3, 2009 - 19:18 ET by JasonCIt's unnatural in that it doesn't (naturally) produce children. Nor do many heterosexual couples. So what? The question is, what material difference does it make to the people that are opposed to it?
None.
In the time it's taken us to have this exchange, several gay couples have been wed. Have our lives been altered? Will they be.
No.
Yes, gay couples can have civil unions. Which was a big step. But there is equality inherent in definitions. Bush advanced a traditional marriage agenda in 2004, which immediately signaled to the gay community: oh look, here's something even more legitimate and tied to the social order...but you can't have it. What did you think would happen? It's being fought for. And the fight is being won.
JasonC
June 3, 2009 - 19:29 ET by MrShyI'll ask again, because you're being dense.
Make your case convincingly for why we need to expand the definition of marriage, and add new, "progressive" pairings in the mix. Make your case convincingly -- BEYOND your wrong argument that it's about "equality" (see below) -- for why gay people need to have this made into law.
In most states -- as we all on this thread have to tirelessly remind you -- the majority of the populace clearly do not see this as a civil rights or equality issue. That's why I pointed out blacks and women, vs. gays.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
How is it not about
June 3, 2009 - 20:16 ET by JasonCHow is it not about equality? Those who claim it is not a civil rights or equality issue are the ones being 'dense' - consciously or otherwise. Of course they're going to deny it's a civil rights issue, just as those who opposed interracial marriage denied that that issue had an ethical basis. The obvious basis of their opposition is that they find it icky and don't like the IDEA of their country condoning it. Well, tough.
Now that I've answered your question, can you answer mine? How are those who oppose gay marriage materially affected by it? I mean, if we're just going by an abstract opposition to its unnaturalness, does that mean I can object to a wedding where the bride's dress doesn't match the flowers?
I'll answer that
June 4, 2009 - 19:53 ET by CobraMan"How is it not about equality?"
Marrage isn't about equality, it's about special privileges. You see, married couples get special privileges in our society that are NOT awarded to other couples. They can, for example, file join tax returns which treats their dual income as a single source. Engaged people, or people simply living together, can not do this. That's a special privilege given to those married couples.
Then there's the medical privileges that a married spouse is awarded in medical decisions. A married man, for example, may legally decide the proper course of treatment for his unconscious wife (and vice versa)and the medical practitioner must abide by that spouse's decisions. An unmarried couple doesn't have this privilege. You couldn't tell a doctor how to treat your unconscious girlfriend, only another family member can do that. A marriage awards you legal membership into her family, and gives you primary control over those types of decisions.
Also, there''s the issue of joint ownership of personal property, Married people enjoy, through law, joint ownership of property and they don't need a separate legal contract to afford them this privilege. Single people don't have this privilege unless they sign a legal contract which has nothing to do with the actual relationship of the couple.
In addition, there's survivor benefits from things like Military service. A married spouse of a solder killed in action will automatically receive survivor benefits. This isn't true of non-married couples. There are no survivor benefits awarded to the surviving member of a unmarried couple.
These are just a few of the special privileges that married couples receive over non-married couples. So, marriage isn't about equality, it's about special treatment.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus.
The US Supreme Court
Can I interject?
June 13, 2009 - 19:49 ET by amberpersonally, I think the government should be out of the business of marriage. I don't care if some guy has 10 wives (just not my husband) or if 3 guys decide to get "married" I view it much the same as other odd family definitions from other cultures...polyandry (1 person marrying many other people of the same sex and often from the same family. In some cultures a woman marries all of the men in the family.) However, people who activly participate in a homosexual lifestyle should not be in the military, whether they tell or not.
I can't say for certain that
June 3, 2009 - 18:58 ET by Another Dead KennedyI can't say for certain that it was enthusiastic as much as optimistic. The speed at which gay marriage is passing through legislation right now makes me think that the issue will reach the Supreme Court before the end of Obama's first term. The challenge of Prop 8 in California will ultimately end up in the SC, which I think will lead to an overall legalization of gay marriage in the US. I imagine most members of NB can agree that the full legalization of gay marriage pass at some point, it's just a question of when.
Blonde knows who she's talking to. I'm sure she's read my previous posts supporting gay marriage.
PS: To get back on topic
June 3, 2009 - 19:04 ET by Another Dead KennedyPS: To get back on topic since I completely ignored any mention of it in my previous post, all that needs to happen is for the Commander in Chief to eliminate "don't ask, don't tell" and the issue is over. That's not a policy easily reversible by even the most conservative president. It would basically mean kicking hundreds, thousands (who really has any idea how many gays are actively serving?) of our nation's finest out of the armed forces. I just don't see that happening.
"By the way, New Hampshire,
June 3, 2009 - 22:47 ET by ckc1227"By the way, New Hampshire, welcome to the club"
6 down, only 51 more to go....
End the ban and draft
June 3, 2009 - 18:11 ET by Chris NormanEnd the ban and draft Shuster!
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Thumbs up for
June 3, 2009 - 18:40 ET by JerThumbs up for cleverness.
Jer
I usually try not to engage
June 3, 2009 - 18:46 ET by Chris NormanI usually try not to engage in these kind of jokes here, but I'm in a strange mood today and decided to temporarily jettison any shaky standards I may have.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
But Shuster is married to a
June 3, 2009 - 18:43 ET by JasonCBut Shuster is married to a woman. I'm ever so confused.
Oh, for goodness sake, it
June 3, 2009 - 18:47 ET by Chris NormanOh, for goodness sake, it was a cheap joke. It's not like Shuster is above the cheap shot.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I know. And I used a
June 3, 2009 - 18:51 ET by JasonCI know. And I used a "wide stance" reference above, so I'm hardly above it either, I guess. Just felt like playing it deadpan.
Lol Chris... I haven't
June 3, 2009 - 18:52 ET by bigtimerLol Chris...
I haven't called Shuster Mile-Wide-Mouth for nothing all these years...
I'm in the same mood as you are evidently...
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
bt,
June 3, 2009 - 19:02 ET by Chris NormanHeh-heh. Guys like Shuster and Olbermann bring out the worst in me - I guess I want to be as mean spirited and cheap shotful (is that a term? Well, it is now) as they are. They don't deserve the dignified approach.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
Just watch. Once the ObamACORNs get illegals the "right" to vote
June 3, 2009 - 19:21 ET by R D Helm...the gays are going to be thrown under the bus so fast they won't believe it.
-Dave
Why is marriage a contentious issue?
June 3, 2009 - 21:41 ET by Kingfish17Why is the concept of marriage a contentious issue? Why is it "legal" for person A to marry person B, but not legal for person A to marry person C? The answer should be obvious to most everyone who regularly visits this website. The problem with marriage, is that that institution of marriage has been hijacked by the GOVERNMENT!
It's my contention that government has no business in legislating marriage. Leave marriage up to organizations like the Church, or whatever other organization two people find agreeable if they don't want to get married at a Church, or let them jump over a broomstick and call themselves married, I don't really care.
Property rights in case of "divorce" or death should be settled by entering into written contracts or wills. There should be no inheratence taxes so that shouldn't be an issue. Marriage should play no part whatsoever with regards to who pays what percentage of their income in taxes.
Of course, under this system, a man could "marry" 100 women or a woman could "marry" her 18 year old son. I don't care.
Legal contracts should be sanctioned and arbitrated by the State. The concept of "marriage" should not be regulated, aproved or disaproved by any form of government. I want the government out of our lives as much as possible.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
PVT David Shuster
June 4, 2009 - 04:54 ET by Sergeant ROCKSo, Shuster wants to join the Army?
Somebody needs to tell him that a 'blanket party' is not what he thinks it is.
No fags in the military please.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
I guess this means Shuster is outing...
June 4, 2009 - 14:24 ET by jawebster1himself. First Anderson Cooper and now Shuster. Jim Webster