1 khaki is tacky!

2 there's no atheists in a butthole!

3 Color me surprised.
Wait, no, don't.  'Cause I'm not.

We knew this when we backed Brown for "The Kennedy Seat."  He's (theoretically) vastly better than a Democrat in that seat, and, though Democrat shenanigans prevented it, would have been the 41st 'nay' vote for Cloture on HCR. 

We're pretty sure he'll be relatively good on Fiscal issues, okay-ish on most (only most) defense ones, and terrible on social issues.  I'm okay with that, considering the alternative.

4 Gack! This is the function of RINO's: to give Blue Dogs cover when their votes are non-essential. Thank goodness someone can give cover to stealth liberals!

5 Someday, these idiots in places like West Virginia may realize that there is no such thing as a moderate or conservative Democrat when its nut-cutting time. But probably not.

6

Great News!

Now Congress will see a huge bounce in its poll numbers. That's a fact.

7 @1 - You know, I think an optional (strictly optional- this is important) "alternative" BDU set that is more "fashionable" should become available.  Just make sure anyone wearing such a uniform is far away from actual combat positions and then target the people shooting at them.

Olive drab and Khaki were picked for a reason, after all...

8 On the plus side, whoever runs against Manchin gets a free campaign ad.  And we all get to find out if the poll about decent folks refusing to put their lives at risk for a government that sneers at our values was for real or not.  Which I think means disaster, or perhaps we should say "learning experience."

9 though Democrat shenanigans prevented it, would have been the 41st 'nay' vote for Cloture on HCR.

No he wouldn't.

But Brown took this one for his (actual) team, by giving Manchin cover, so they'll let him vote "no" on the budget, and you can keep thinking that.

10 We should just be part of Canada.

11 Once they have enough votes to get cloture it is over. They had that last week. When the House passed it yesterday I knew it was over.

Screwed again by the lame *uck congress.

12 Posted by: jjshaka at December 16, 2010 11:17 AM (B5wXr)

Newsflash: As long as the "government money" keeps flowing, they don't care.

This is why ending any and all district-targeted spending by elected officials must end.  Give the military their budget, and let them figure out how best to spend it (on bases, weapons, and new *fabulous!* uniforms).  Give DOT a budget and let them figure out how best to spend it.

Then, when disproportionately large amounts of dough stop heading into heavily democrat districts, maybe they'll gain some sanity.

But I'm letting my insufficient cynicism get hold of me this morning...

13 Also, Scott Brown is going to be officially worthless. He's going to make Olympia Snowe look like Jim DeMint- especially after Massachusetts stayed completely liberal in November.

14

When i went in to the military it was a sacrifice.

I had to spend 12 weeks in a bay with 59 other men.

I was not allowed to talk to the women, in the other company.

It was part of the discipline of breaking you down as a soldier.

Boot camp was not supposed to be fun.

Now how much of a sacrifice would it have been if i was going to be sent away for 12 weeks to bunk with 59 other females?

It wouldnÂ’t have been a sacrifice, it would have been a god damn dream come true.

Homosexuality is as incompatible with military life as being flatfooted, blind or deaf.

It does not fit the mission.

15 Tell me again why we should support "moderates" as Republicans.

16 Posted by: oblig. at December 16, 2010 11:20 AM (x7Ao

Oh, no, I trust him on that one.  I don't trust for a minute that he'd back a full repeal, but I do trust that he'd have been #41 against the Health Care bill- its what he campaigned on hardest, and he does want some chance of getting re-elected.

17 I disagree with this primarily because the focus is wrong.  This has nothing to do with making a better military and everything to do with some nebulous concept of social justice.  Be that as it may, this is not the hill to die on.

P.S.  It amuses me to think that if and when the draft is re-instated (which would be only in a time of crisis) the homos would clearly be draft eligible if this passes.  I wonder if they have thought of that.

18 You know, people give up a lot when they join the military: -They can't live where they feel like. -They can't do what they feel like. -They can't always wear what they want. -They can't always say what they want. -They can't always be with their families when they want to be. -They have to do difficult and dangerous jobs that they may or may not want to do. And on and on. But apparently, for some reason I cannot fathom, the ONE THING they CANNOT be asked to give up is the ability to openly display their sexuality. I. Don't. Get. It.

19 OT: Bomb-making materials found in CT home:

(FWIW, I live only one street over from the house where the Feds were busy last night; saw the flashing lights out my back window but assumed it was just a fender-bender, or the CT morons on a hobo hunt).

http://tinyurl.com/24hkxhv

20 Next, let's repeal guns from the military! Guns are BAD! Someone could get HURT! ...or WORSE - they might have their self-esteem bruised!

21 Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 11:21 AM (e4sSD)

"Devil or the Deep Blue Sea.  But the Devil's RIGHT HERE."

22 Why is being against the repeal of DADT in Congress supposed to be the "real" Republican position?

This is how it should be done. Not by the courts, and not via a spending bill.

23 15 Tell me again why we should support "moderates" as Republicans.
Because they will suck your dick and not charge for it?

24 Tell me again why we should support "moderates" as Republicans.

Oh it's vitally important that Bitch McConnell becomes majority leader again, because he'll like do stuff.  And stuff.

25 How do the soldiers feel about this?

Has there ever been an actual poll on how they view this issue?

26 Posted by: MayBee at December 16, 2010 11:24 AM (PLixr)

Because we're against repeal of DADT at all.  When you think about it, DADT is the only policy that makes sense- especially as currently enforced.

27

khaki is tacky!

Posted by: we're here, we'er queer and we need new uniforms! at December 16, 2010 11:14 AM (Cm66w)

I'm on it!

28 Good.

I think this isn't really a terrible idea (and I base that on consultations with at least 20 current military men - some in favor, some opposed, none who feel very strongly about it though, which is telling - and will basically ice Brown's reelection in Massachusetts. 

I actually think it's the right thing to do, too.

29 cough*Mike Castle*cough

30 I don't care what your sexual preference is as long as it doesn't invovle children or animals.  That being said, the military is NOT the place for social experiments.  Lives are on the line and I predict no good will come of this policy. 

31 Posted by: Timbo at December 16, 2010 11:26 AM (ph9vn)

Not that I know of, and most current soldiers just won't comment on it.  Not "officially" anyway.  I know my dad and uncle (Viet Nam vets) will be horrified by this (they weren't to keen on DADT in the first place), but my Brother (Iraq II vet) doesn't give a rip.

32 15 Tell me again why we should support "moderates" as Republicans.

Because Jim DeMint couldn't win there.  Would you really rather have a Ted Kennedy type, or a Scott Brown?  That is the choice you have, like it or not.  Baby steps.

33 I am going to get a beatdown here, but I do not support DADT. I think being a gay woman and a soldier is fine by me...men too. We need anybody who would take a bullet for this country out in front. period. I cannot therefore support DADT. ...but I am a devoted Moron.

34 we're here, we'er queer and we need new uniforms!

Related.

35 DESTROY THE ECONOMY   check
DESTROY HEALTH CARE   check
DESTROY THE MILITARY   check

What's next?
Am I missing anything?

36 I don't care what your sexual preference is as long as it doesn't invovle children or animals.

Thank God!

37 Fortunately, our betters have told those stupid social cons to shut up and follow a truce on those icky divisive social issues. They are instead focusing laser-like on fiscal issues.

38 Maybee can you suck my cock?

39 The new Republicans same as the old Democrats.

40 Why is being against the repeal of DADT in Congress supposed to be the "real" Republican position?

This is how it should be done. Not by the courts, and not via a spending bill.

Because it shouldn't be done at all.  This is one more step to alienate the federal government from American values.  Why would any real American support this pack of foreigners in DC who steal whatever they want and promote infanticide and sodomy?

41 It is hard for me to believe that you all would discharge a decorated soldier because he or she is gay. People have been discharged because they are gay. Liberty is such a bitch...

42 36 I don't care what your sexual preference is as long as it doesn't involve children or animals.

Thank God!

Posted by: The Chicken

I don't do poultry unless it's kosher.  I have standards.

43 @33 - And that's the False Choice being presented.  With current policy (especially as it is enforced) no one who wants to server- short of actual mental or physical disqualification- is rejected.  The ONLY thing that gays have to do to be in the military currently is not make an issue of it.  You know, kind of how I wish they'd be in normal life as well.

If they're gay, fine, just don't be all up in someone's grill about it.  Most soldiers already know, so it's not like they'll even be surprised by many (if any) who "come out" if DADT get's repealed.

Someone pointed out several weeks (or a couple of months) ago: this has nothing to do with letting them serve, it is the first step to making them a protected class in the military.

44 "Homosexuality is as incompatible with military life as being flatfooted, blind or deaf."

Exactly, which is why it has been banned in military fighting forces (at least theoretically) for pretty much ever.

I'm still trying to picture what it would've been like if we'd had a half-dozen gay guys among the 100 guys in my barracks. How many drunken fights? How many people just getting pissed off that a guy who sucks cock all night is telling them to "man up" on a road march?
Without being overly dramatic, barracks life is (I'm guessing) a bit like prison.
It's all men, alpha males and beta males side-by-side, and there are all sorts of macho pecking orders that don't always equate to rank. I just can't see it being at all healthy for morale. It will suck.
The worst part is that Scott Brown is a National Guard lifer, but has probably not been in a barracks since Basic/OCS.

45 Poor Bill Clinton.  His "legacy" shrinks with each passing day.  I always am amused how the media spins DADT as a "Republican issue." 

46 This means Eric Holder will let me out.

47

Follow up to the last post:

 May God damn to Hell anyone who tells me that we should be silent and relegate human rights issues like abortion to a closet so that the grown ups can work on fiscal matters.

48 But apparently, for some reason I cannot fathom, the ONE THING they CANNOT be asked to give up is the ability to openly display their sexuality.

Like you can't figure it out when the only letters from girls a guy gets are from his sisters.

49 RINOs don't stab us in the back.  They stab us in the face.

50 Yes the time to pass repeal of DADT, a trillion plus budget noone can read, and ratify nuclear treaties is in a lame duck congress that was voted out on its ass with a 13% approval rating. THIS IS HOW THIS IS DONE!

51 Homosexuality is not a social experiment. It is a fact of life. The military would be dealing with reality in 2010. I agree that reality is not always the facts we like.

52 Oh, and I'm sure the repeal of DADT will be used as a recruiting tool by Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists.  You know how they hate teh gays.

53 This ought to change the definition of 'close order drilling.'

54 Heather ...beware the "confirmed bachelor"... never ever agree to that blind date.

55 "Homosexuality is as incompatible with military life as being flatfooted, blind or deaf."

Exactly, which is why it has been banned in military fighting forces (at least theoretically) for pretty much ever.


Ahem.

56

 

RINOs don't stab us in the back.  They stab us in the face.

 

you got that right!

57 @41 - Is it hard to believe that you would discharge a decorated soldier for having an affair? They can be.  Technically, they're not even allowed to "shack up."  If it gets brought to their CO's attention in any official way, they'll be disciplined- up to and including discharge.  Just like DADT.

The social constraints of the military are, necessarily, somewhat more restrictive than those in normal life.  If you can't accept that, don't serve.  It's an all volunteer force, after all.

58

crap

 

59 DESTROY THE ECONOMY   check
DESTROY HEALTH CARE   check
DESTROY THE MILITARY   check

What's next?
Am I missing anything?

Amnesty.

60 Heather ...beware the "confirmed bachelor"...

In my experience, the "confirmed bachelors" are straight men who never matured emotionally past "Hey, I got to touch boobies!"  But I digress.

61 Republican squishes resemble (skim) milky toast on tough issues!

In other news water is wet;

And a large ball of fire was spotted in the eastern skies during the early morning hours.

62 After the repeal of DADT is in effect want to guess how long before the new protected class files some kind of harassment lawsuit against the military?  That they require separate showers and toilets?  It's on the horizon people, it's just a matter of time.

63 This is how it should be done. Not by the courts, and not via a spending bill.

Posted by: MayBee

 

Yeah, you're right. It should be jammed through by a lame duck congress which has justly earned the worst ratings in the history of the Congress. And it should be done while the budget process is subverted and prostituted in the last two weeks of the year, when it should have been in place for fucking October.

 

Moreover, it should be done by jerks announcing that this is a vote against discrimination. Even though heterosexual personnel are going to be treated differently.

 

Rotten cherry atop the rancid whipped cream: this will NOT result in yet another protected minority.

64 "10 We should just be part of Canada. Posted by: New England Buttriot at December 16, 2010 11:20 AM (EL+OC)" We'd be OK with that.

65 @51 - Open embrace of Homosexuality is a social experiment.  Even in Ancient Greece (where we only have rumor and innuendo) it was taboo- people just looked the other way.

Well, right now, that's what we're doing.

66 Who is in Charge of changing the UCMJ after it passes or does the bill change the UCMJ and make sodomy ok?

67

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 16, 2010 11:30 AM (4ucxv)

From Radish's link:

The field versions, meanwhile, are lighter and come with thinner but more mobile boots.

So light that soldiers are coming down with pneumonia!  I guess that's what it means to "suffer for fashion".

This line was my favorite, though:

Russia designed its first post-Soviet uniform in the 1990s, but it was unpopular with officers who complained that it made them look like they were serving in a Third World army.

68 Guys don't want to take showers with guys that want to take showers with guys.

The individual liberty and freedom on choice of every other soldier is getting raped for some PC bullshit promoted by scum who hate the military.

69 Posted by: The Great Unwashed, Flyover Country at December 16, 2010 11:38 AM (vOH26)

Not "Just" No.

70 I don't see why preventing DADT being repealed is a Republican issue.

It's a matter of conscience.. as someone said above, homosexuality is a fact of life.  Deal with it.  Those in the military that cannot deal with it will leave.. and then they will have to deal with it in in whatever job they get outside the military.

71 You all are mixing up the RINO thing... since when do you have to be anti-gay to be a Republican? Scott Brown will not get re elected in MA unless he makes this vote a yes. He is pro gay rights, does that make him a bad Republican? You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarians are big in the NE. My own philosophy is I want you to have your best life, honest to you. I do not want to pay your bar bill. and that will be a winning ticket for the PUBS..in 2012.

72

After the repeal of DADT is in effect want to guess how long before the new protected class files some kind of harassment lawsuit against the military?  That they require separate showers and toilets?  It's on the horizon people, it's just a matter of time.

 

Two words:  BATH HOUSES!

73 Will we still be able to call them 'foxholes' without giggling?

74 Moreover, it should be done by jerks announcing that this is a vote against discrimination. Even though heterosexual personnel are going to be treated differently.

Is there going to be a test, or can straight soldiers who want private berths and showers just check the "gay" box on the paperwork?

75

I am 100% for this. Let's call the media and the left's bluff. They've been telling us tens of thousands of people want to join the military but DADT was holding them back. Well I loook forward to seeing the recruitment rates skyrocket after it is repealed.

Also, I can't wait to see all the colleges that ban ROTC because of DADT will now have to let them on campus right?

76 Guys don't want to take showers with guys that want to take showers with guys.
Posted by: SurferDoc
-----------
But they are already doing just that every day.. it's just that no one can talk about it..that's just stupid.

77 He is pro gay rights, does that make him a bad Republican?

Separate showers are a right?

78 Fine, they want the repeal of DADT?  I say let's reinstate the draft.  Make it equal for ALL citizens.  I submit we start with the west coast first, primarily Berkeley.

79 Tell me again why we should support "moderates" as Republicans.

Because they will suck your dick and not charge for it?

But in return for the one time they will do that they will take you up the hinder a thousand times.

80 The chaos is inevitable and we might as well vote for demoncrats and get it over with already.

81 The military would be dealing with reality in 2010. I agree that reality is not always the facts we like.

Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only

This is one of the most idiotic statements I've ever seen, anywhere.

If it is a fact, then is a fact. That is, it is part of our reality. If reality and what we preceive to be facts do not agree, then there is an issue with our understanding of either reality, what we have established as fact, or both.

translation: I want this to happen, and I don't give a flying fuck who this hurts.

here's reality: Heterosexual males and females are not allowed to billet together. Homosexual males and fmales are. And this is both the new reality and a fact.

82

RINOs don't stab us in the back.  They stab us in the face.

Back, face, I don't cawe, I wove to be stabbed all ovew!

83 No it is not just stupid.  It is keeping private matters private.  It used to be called manners.

84 Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 11:35 AM (Ki7fm)

You're from Belgium, aren't you. The accent gives it away.

85 You all are mixing up the RINO thing...
since when do you have to be anti-gay to be a Republican?

I don't think you have to be anti-gay to be a Republican.  Having a gay couple down the street is not the same as having a couple of gay people move into your bedroom.

86

Also, I can't wait to see all the colleges that ban ROTC because of DADT will now have to let them on campus right?

 

Ha! Ha! Ha!  That's a good one Ben!  Thanks for giving me my chuckle for the day. 

Hey where's CDR M?  I'd love to hear what he has to say on this one.

87 Darn sock!

88 Somebody asked upthread if there had been polling done on the issue and the answer is yes.  There was fairly famously a poll around the time of Obama's coronation that indicated a decent chunk of currently serving military would leave by whatever means were available to them (officers can resign, enlisted don't have that way out)-I don't remember the figure but it was at least double digits.  There was also a poll done for the study that was just released about the potential effects showing repeal is popular among REMFs and opposed by solid majorities of those in combat situations (Marines in particular).

The resignations may or may not come to pass, but I think we ought to worry about future recruitment, too.  What decent parent from a pro-American values state is going to encourage their son to a career path that involves regularly bunking up with sodomites?  Does anyone really think there's a deep desire among urban liberals to sign up to make up the difference?  You could reinstate the draft, but you'll run into a whole lot of "conscious objectors" from the first group.

89

here's reality: Heterosexual males and females are not allowed to billet together. Homosexual males and fmales are. And this is both the new reality and a fact.

Posted by: Blue Hen

Blue Hen,

I wonder how long before all the men claim to be gay in order to billet with the females???  There are going to be a lot of gay men in the military.

90 Who is asking for separate showers, the gays guys or the straight guys? Any concerns about the girls showering together?..or is all the homo -hate with the men?

91 You're from Belgium, aren't you. The accent gives it away.

ROFL

92

#71: "You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative."

No, you can't. Liberal social policies always end up requiring fiscal subsidy.

93 OK, so they're against it on principle when it's part of a spending bill...

...but they're all for doing it in a lame duck session

94 huerfano... how about a gay child? Are you going to make your gay child sleep in a different part of the house?

95
pro-gay rights = extra rights

the whole idea is wholly unconstitutional and Un-American.

96 Any concerns about the girls showering together?..or is all the homo -hate with the men?

Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only

Who says we hate gays?  Get your facts straight before you start that shit here.

97 Why don't all the people that think repealing DADT is great address the real issue:  How does this guarantee no reduction of the effectiveness of the military?  Good luck because anything involving feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings isn't a good answer.

98 Those in the military that cannot deal with it will leave.. and then they will have to deal with it in in whatever job they get outside the military.

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry

 

Because most jobs outside of the military also involve billeting arrangements just like the military, and an inability to be hired or resign at will.

 

I like how you chose to demean people in the military that "cannot deal with it", as if there is only one rational choice, that is, to embrace this power play with open arms.

99
No one is born a homosexual.

It's a widely-accepted myth.

100 No, you are wrong...socially I can let other Americans practice their God given right to LIBERTY. LIBERTY is freedom. You really think there are not a ton of gays hiding out in the military already?

101 @71 - It might be a winning ticket in '12, but, if so, it won't be in '16.

Social Cons are a big part of the "Reagan Coalition."  If they stay home, Republicans can't win, either.

That said, all of the arguments for repeal of DADT are false: no one is preventing gays from serving.  Gays aren't being targeted for some kind of inquisition wherein their homosexuality is determined and then they're kicked out.

As currently enforced, if they do something that brings it to their CO's "official" attention, he has to kick them out.  Since the only thing required to avoid that is be a little bit discrete, that's really not asking much.  That's really all that's going on.

Repealing DADT (actually, modifying the requirements to serve so that being homosexual is not a dis-qualifier: remember, Repeal would just mean we go back to the old policy) doesn't allow one person who wants to serve now but can't to serve.  What it does is makes the military officially recognize homosexuality as "okay" which we've seen time, and time again, is just the first step to getting homosexuals established as a protected class.

102 Any concerns about the girls showering together?..or is all the homo -hate with the men?

Ah yes...pointing out separate showers are not a right equals homo-hate.  Lefty math.

103 huerfano...
how about a gay child? Are you going to make your gay child sleep in a different part of the house? Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 11:48 AM

Stupid question and not at all to the point.

104 ford the IINO. Independent in name only

Troll I say!!!!

105 WTF exactly is wrong with the current policy?

106 #99...LOL

107 how about a gay child? Are you going to make your gay child sleep in a different part of the house?

Your children sleep in your bedroom? 

108
Scott Brown called the Dennis & Callahan sports show, this morning.

1) He's not voting for the spending bill. No way, no how.

2) He can 5:50 miles for at least 5 miles, no problem.

wow

109 The undeniable point is this, and this alone:  This is being done to suit the purposes of a Democrat constituency, not the military.  This is not a decision made on the basis of readiness, but one to satisfy a democrat voting bloc..

110 ..or is all the homo -hate with the men?


We're giving practical examples of how/why this is a terrible social experiment that will weaken morale (at the very least) in our Armed Forces. And most of us are doing it based on personal experience in the military.
Whereas you're just a douchebag who was dying to get "homo-hate" into a post rather than actually responding to anyone's concerns.

111 Who is asking for separate showers, the gays guys or the straight guys?

Any concerns about the girls showering together?..or is all the homo -hate with the men?

Posted by: ford the IINO

 

Notice how the label "homo-hate" is applied. The question that has been asked repeatedly, but never answered by the cheerleaders for this stupidity is this: Why are you fighting for homosexual men to billet together with each other and heterosexual men, and for homosexual women to billet with each other and heterosexual women, but not for heterosexual males and heterosexual women to billet together?

Why all the "hetero-hate"?

112 94 huerfano...
how about a gay child? Are you going to make your gay child sleep in a different part of the house?

Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 11:48 AM (Ki7fm)

Are you suggesting that gay children are prematurely sexually active? That's homophobic you sick tool.

113 WTF exactly is wrong with the current policy?

Bill Clinton championed it as a victory for gays, kinda funny how it morphed into evil "homo-hate."

114 Scott Brown just guaranteed an election loss.

If voting for a "moderate Republican" really means just another reliable vote for Obama, then there is no point in supporting "moderate Republicans"

115 Again for the supporters of repeal?WTF is so bad about DADT?

116 You really think there are not a ton of gays hiding out in the military already?

Where are they hiding?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Listen, if there were tons of gays in the military as you say, there would have been fuschia uniforms by now.  At the very least they would have done something with those depressing barracks.

117 Gee, there I am in the shower and the guy over there is eyeballing me and slowly stroking his yang.  My mind will certainly be on my job today.

118
another myth: there's no such thing as a 'slippery slope.'

119 I am on this site everday moron. If I am a troll, I am a walrus...kookookachu. So I am a troll because you are threatened by homosexuality? Stop and think a moment, why are you so afraid of gay people? Did your music teacher really scare you that much in Jr. High?

120 Where are they hiding?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Oregon National Guard.

121
lol @ homos 'hiding' out in the military

ford, you dunce

122 As a concern christian conservative who almost voted for George Bush twice and nearly pulled the lever for John McCain, I find all the animosity and hate towards God's creatures, Teh Gays very disturbing.  Nasty rhetoric like that may force me to stay home November 2012 and not participate in the next election, where I most certainly would have almost voted for the Republican presidential candidate.

123 This has nothing to do with equal rights. It has everything to do with underminding the military.

124 #116 LOL...but how to explain some of the command?? About face..

125 Has Scott Brown voted correctly on anything yet?

126
Where are they hiding? 

They're hiding in The Shadows with the illegals.

127 So I am a troll because you are threatened by homosexuality?

You're a troll because you ignore questions and arguments and bust out personal attacks and bullshit like "homo-hate."

128 another myth: there's no such thing as a 'slippery slope.'

Yes there is!!!!

129 Posted by: ford the IINO.


Asshole, show me the "fear" and "hate". We're talking about real life consequences here, not your fudgetastic fantasies about Scott Brown.

130
The Shadows = Everyfuckingwhere.

131

Explain this to me please. 

 How was it that when I was in the Air Force (1971), I was never allowed to bunk with females yet alone shower or shit with them?  Why was that important to the Air Force?  I think it had to do with men desiring women and vice versa. Sexual tensions and all of that stuff.   Now jump to 2010, and it's perfectly okay for homosexual men/women, who sexually desire men/women...to shower and shit with the objects of their disires?  How is that?  Please explain.  Does. Not. Compute.

132 My dad made me sleep in the dog house.

133 Let's not get too positive on the repeal else we'll have the fagots from AllahP posting here like mad.

134

I like how you chose to demean people in the military that "cannot deal with it", as if there is only one rational choice, that is, to embrace this power play with open arms.

Posted by: Blue Hen
--------
How do I demean them?  Some will choose to leave.  It is a statement of fact. It implies no judgment.

Billeting hetero soldiers with gay soldiers happens every single day, Blue Hen.  And a lot of the time the hetero soldiers know who is gay.  But there are rules of conduct in the military.  Do you think once gay soldiers "come out" the Army will turn into one big butt fucking party or something?  WTF do you think will happen?

135 Men who squeal and run about with their arms flapping, under fire, are a real fucking buzzkill.

136

Now our military will be on the same plane as the Belgians!  And the Swedes! 

Not so sure the Chinese, Russkies, Iranians, and Norks are as concerned with social engineering in their militaries. 

137
Has there ever been an actual poll on how they view this issue?

Posted by: Timbo at December 16, 2010 11:26 AM (ph9vn)

According to the study conducted by Obama's flunkie Jeh Johnson, 63% of the military oppose repealing DADT. They didn't break down the remaining 37% between those that want gay activists in the military and those that want to return to the pre-DADT policy.

138 Any concerns about the girls showering together?..or is all the homo -hate with the men?

This is an interesting point.  Based on the group dynamics in many sex-segregated arenas in society, one can presume that lesbians would quickly become the alphas of the group and make life very unpleasant for straight girls.

I have heard stories that this already happens, to some extent, under the surface.

So unpleasant that straight women will simply choose not to enlist.

139 This poor sick Republic is about to choke on its own vomit.

140 Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 11:50 AM (Ki7fm)

In reverse order:  If there are already a ton of homosexuals in the military, why repeal DADT?  Apparently nothing is preventing them from serving quite honorably.

No, you can't be Socially Liberal and be Conservative.  At most, you can be Socially Tolerant (which, believe me, is not the same thing at all).  Providing the stamp of official government approval on a behavior (any behavior, really) will eventually lead to that behavior being subsidized in some way.  Social Cons want the government to put that stamp of approval on as few things as possible to maintain the social and moral foundations of our society, to ignore as many as possible, and to discourage only those that are actively harmful to society.  Most Social Cons believe that homosexuality, in general, falls on the line between "ignore" and "discourage"- it's a judgment call.  For the military, however, the potential downsides far outweigh any false promises of benefit (if you believe there are tens of thousands of gays who desperately want to serve but can't because of DADT, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you) and should therefore be discouraged, however lightly.

By requiring official approval of gays in the military, you will eventually end up providing them some amount of protected status that heterosexuals will not get (it's been proven over and over in civilian life, so don't try to deny it).

141 Concerned... I voted for McCain even though I thought he was on the wrong side of this issue. I vote for Pubs almost always, but I agree that the hate directed to homosexuality here is more than a little disturbing. I am registered Independent since 1991, and lived in 5 different states. This single issue prevents me from being Republican. I was raised to respect all Americans and give them their LIBERTY. I wear a" walking liberty "coin around my neck instead of a cross...

142 Who says we morons have an issue with gays?
Our issue is dicking around with military readiness and effectiveness for the sake of political correctness run amok.

Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass what you do in your private life but when you join the military you give up some rights.  You do not get to pick and choose like a buffet of what I will do and what I won't.

143

Gay soldiers coming out of the closet in a combat platoon?

Well that should make deciding who's walking point easier.

144 I think the first time a homosexual male jerks off in the shower in the presence of a non-homosexual and is turned and disciplined, he will go public and sue the military and all fucking Hell will break loose.  That is what these motherfuckers want.  That's what I think.

145

Did your music teacher really scare you that much in Jr. High?

Actually it was my biology teacher. Perhaps after she left her husband and three children to partner with one of the girls she met while running "outing club" (camping, so they said), that she became less hostile and unpleasant. Nastly piece of work, that.

I don't grasp why the homo-apologists don't get that people do not want to shower, sleep, or huddle in a fox hole with those that may have a sexual response to them. Women, who have stalls in their bathrooms and who do not stand around in states of undress in the public area, will squeal and scream if a man walks into a ladies room.

146
It's funny to think a child is born a homosexual.

Every single homosexual (and stippuh) I know had some sort of sexual abuse and/or bad divorce, i.e., no male parental unit in the home, in their childhood.

Sexual deviance from the norm is a result childhood trauma. No one is born a homosexual.

To wit: Rosie O'Donnell, Chastity Bono, etc.

147 Because Jim DeMint couldn't win there.  Would you really rather have a Ted Kennedy type, or a Scott Brown?  That is the choice you have, like it or not.  Baby steps.

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2010 11:28 AM (3ll0O)

Actually, looking at Brown's voting record since the election I'm not quite sure there is much difference between him and  how Coakley would have voted.

148 Has Scott Brown voted correctly on anything yet?

SR 701 congratulating the University of Akron men's soccer team on winning the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship.

149

Now our military will be on the same plane as the Belgians!  And the Swedes! 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie
------------

And the Brits and the IDF.. not exactly a bunch of weenies.

150
Bot Rosie-O and her brother are homosexuals.
That's quite a coincidence to be 'born' that way, eh?

151 This single issue prevents me from being Republican.

www.dailykoss.com

C'ya!

152 So I am a troll because you are threatened by homosexuality? Stop and think a moment, why are you so afraid of gay people?

Did your music teacher really scare you that much in Jr. High?

Posted by: ford the IINO

 

Again with the discriminatory language; "threatened by homosexuality". Try answering post #111

153 No parent in their right mind will encourage their 18 year old son to join an openly homosexual military.

To live and sleep with perverted men who like anal sex?  A young boy-man will be like candy to them.

No way in hell.

154

I was raised to respect all Americans and give them their LIBERTY. I wear a" walking liberty "coin around my neck instead of a cross...

Stick with the libs.

If you can't grasp that the right to not associate is as important as the right to associate then you're a lib at heart. When the islamofacists take over you can explain to them your stand on liberty and homosexual "freedom". I'm sure they'll understand.

155 So I am a troll because you are threatened by homosexuality? Stop and think a moment, why are you so afraid of gay people?

It's the colors and sense of rhythm.

Really, maybe we think you're a troll because of the hissing indignation and flamboyant puffery...

156 This is an interesting point.  Based on the group dynamics in many sex-segregated arenas in society, one can presume that lesbians would quickly become the alphas of the group and make life very unpleasant for straight girls.

I have heard stories that this already happens, to some extent, under the surface.

So unpleasant that straight women will simply choose not to enlist.
Posted by: AmishDude

I agree Amish.  After being the object of unwanted intentions from a female supervisor who was gay I never want to experience it again.  Gay females can be nasty pieces of work when the hold a position of authority and don't get their way.
(don't hit me alexthechick!)

157 I am sorry if you think I am personally attacking you. I am trying to get you to understand that not all peeps who support the repeal of DADT are progressive moonbats. DADT is a wedge issue.(pardon the pun,,,but I will admit I am laughing).

158 And the Brits and the IDF.. not exactly a bunch of weenies. Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 16, 2010 12:01 PM (f9c2L) Gays serving openly in the IDF is greatly over stateded. Yes they serve, Yes some serve openly, but don't for a minute think that does not freeze their ability to move up the chain of command. It is still stigmatized.

159 He is pro gay rights, does that make him a bad Republican?

I throw the BS flag on the term "gay rights". Gays already have all the same "rights" straights have.

What I want to know is when are straight white males going to get any "rights"?

160 This is hard thing to get straight, there are many holes to fill and it's time to man up. We need to get to the bottom of it all and not flinch when something is thrust upon us. It best to grease the rails and go in with both eyes open.

161 Really, maybe we think you're a troll because of the hissing indignation and flamboyant puffery...


I laughed out loud.

162 This is not an anti-gay issue.  This is about harming our military for the sake of an unwise social policy forced into an environment where it doesn't fit.  Nobody has to hate anyone to see that.

163 But there are rules of conduct in the military.  Do you think once gay soldiers "come out" the Army will turn into one big butt fucking party or something?  WTF do you think will happen?

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 16, 2010 11:57 AM (f9c2L)

The rules of conduct will go right in the shitter.  Can you guarantee that won't happen?  No you can't.  Then why fuck around with what works?

164 157 Why is DADT so offensive to you?Why??

165 Scott Brown will not get re elected in MA unless he makes this vote a yes. He is pro gay rights, does that make him a bad Republican?
You can be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Libertarians are big in the NE.

He just earned a donation to his opponent in the primary, and if necessary a donation to his opposition in the general election by myself. We cannot let treachery prosper.

Donating to him in the first place is apparently the biggest mistake I've made politically.

166 You can' let butt pirates in the military because they are all sociopaths. They will just stand around and do nothing like the dyke cops who let Cho kill all the kids at VA TECH.

167
ford, do you also support transsexuals serving openly in the military?

168 If the only way an R can get elected is to vote like a D, what's the point?

And don't give me that 'they'll vote with us where it counts' crap.  All evidence to date is utterly to the contrary.

And don't start about 'leadership', either.  Especially when they're the ones getting the positions.

We're being pragmatized and compromised out of a republic generations worked and bled for.  These are truly sad times.

169 Cthulhu cares not whether your military men sleep with each other like women.

170 We already have repeal of DADT.  It's called the Navy.  Who's the CJCS supporting this?  Admiral Mullen.  Anchors Away!

171 Three sets of bathrooms.  Love it.

172 The resignations may or may not come to pass, but I think we ought to worry about future recruitment, too

According to a recent Rand Corporation study this will cost us 7% of our recruits per year, or about 13,000.

I guess all those stories about the trouble in hitting recruiting goals were BS if we can afford to make this change now.

173 And the Brits and the IDF.. not exactly a bunch of weenies.

Curious thing about the IDF: I've read that gays can serve openly, but when it comes to mandatory service, you can get out of it by simply declaring yourself to be gay.

So this begs the question: What about the draft?

Another question: Are we allowed to "ask" now or is just the "tell" portion repealed?

174

I like how you chose to demean people in the military that "cannot deal with it", as if there is only one rational choice, that is, to embrace this power play with open arms.

Posted by: Blue Hen
--------
How do I demean them?  Some will choose to leave.  It is a statement of fact. It implies no judgment.

Billeting hetero soldiers with gay soldiers happens every single day, Blue Hen.  And a lot of the time the hetero soldiers know who is gay.  But there are rules of conduct in the military.  Do you think once gay soldiers "come out" the Army will turn into one big butt fucking party or something?  WTF do you think will happen?

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry

Bullshit. You used the phrase, "those that cannot deal with it". That's judgemental.

I know how troops are billeted. I served in the USMC for five years. I keep asking why heterosexual men and women cannot billet together even though you are in favor of homsexual men billeting with other homosexual men and heterosexual men.

175
How can anyone compare the British or IDF to the American military juggernaut?

Besides, we're Americans. We do shit our own way.

We lead. We do not follow.

176 It's just a way to get a federal gay marriage act passed later. They really don't care about the military, but are interested in making sure that when the gays sue for their dependent partners to get benefits that it forces the govt into some sort of federal gay marriage act.

177 so you are implying that supporting gay rights is a "slippery slope" to islamofascism? I am thinking you are being a little flamboyant and hissy? I am full of snark on this because I think you are falling for the Donkey's trick. The D's love us to fight on gay rights and abortion,..hell they have won a few POTUS races doing it.

178 LIBERTY is freedom boring a hole through your shitter with my lusty gaze while I start to plump under the showerhead next to you. I think it improves the dialogue when we dispense with the esoteric "philosophy-bites", don't you?

179 They should use knob polishers to find land mines.

180 Three sets of bathrooms.  Love it.
Posted by: SurferDoc

Don't forget three sets of barracks.  Male barracks, female barracks and pillow fight barracks.

181

Now our military will be on the same plane as the Belgians!  And the Swedes! 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie

You forget the Dutch, the heroes of Srebrenica.

182 177 Proves this guy is a libtard troll.

183

And the Brits and the IDF.. not exactly a bunch of weenies

 

Neither of which have hundreds of thousands of troops srving in cramped ship compartments, open squad bays and forward locations. Our military is the only one that projects so much of itself.

184 The limeys can barely carry our cape these days.

185
ford is so independent it doesn't answer questions that require taking a side.

186 I just dont see the fairy gay guy joining the marines... or the army.

Lesbians.. yeah.

But the guy who dresses up and goes to gay parades... he aint joining the military.

187 Gays serving openly in the IDF is greatly over stateded. Yes they serve, Yes some serve openly, but don't for a minute think that does not freeze their ability to move up the chain of command. It is still stigmatized.
Posted by: nevergiveup
---------
And the same kind of arrangement will work out in the US military as well.  The Marines are openly hostile to gays in their ranks judging by polls and the pentagon study.  I would predict almost no gay Marine would serve openly and gays would eventually seek other branches of service to enlist in.

The real danger is gays becoming a "protected group"... demanding "rights", etc equal to hetero counterparts insofar as housing with partners, benefits, etc goes.  That can possibly be prevented by writing legislation properly, but with or without that legislation, the courts are going to eventually step in and make this all happen anyway.  I would much prefer it happen legislatively than through the courts.

188 Wait until the Navy has LGBT dances at the Enlisted Club.  And they will.  Wonderful.  Fucking wonderful.

189
This is what independents and moderates bring to the party, folks.

They spend most of the time sitting on the fence, ignorant of the details and facts, and then when they finally take a side, it's the wrong one.

190 Bath house demonrat in name only.

191

We should treat Brown, Collins and Snowe the same way we treated Munchkin--do everything in our power to defeat and replace them.

Hope Scott Brown did not sign a long term lease  in DC.  He's cooked.

192 This is nothing. The great moderates want to ratify START too. We give up alot, Russia gives up almost nothing. WOW, great huh?

193 Gay females can be nasty pieces of work when the hold a position of authority and don't get their way.
(don't hit me alexthechick!)

Posted by: mpfs at December 16, 2010 12:04 PM (iYbLN)

I think what you say is not quite right.  The problem isn't that they can be, but it only takes one. And with a PC system in place that will actively encourage aggressive lesbians to behave badly and excuse their behavior, it will not be good for those who are not either alphas themselves or who don't want that kind of aggressive behavior directed at them.

194
just wait a few months


...here come the 'test' cases

We learned nothing from the Citadel fiasco.

195 Well...transexuality is an interesting question. I agree. Do you think that the cross dressing fellow in MASH was problem... just joking here...

196 And the same kind of arrangement will work out in the US military as well.  The Marines are openly hostile to gays in their ranks judging by polls and the pentagon study.  I would predict almost no gay Marine would serve openly and gays would eventually seek other branches of service to enlist in.

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry

 

Speaking as a Marine no longer on active duty, fuck you.

They are not hostile. They have the largest percentage of combat arms than the other services, and they have the worst housing. They will be impacted worse than the other services. And all of this proves that you don't give a damn what effects this change will have.

 

And you still haven't explained we aren't liberalizing heterosexual billeting in the interest of "fairness".

197
It's about destroying American institutions and traditions.

We're being eaten alive.

198 The real danger is gays becoming a "protected group"... demanding "rights", etc equal to hetero counterparts insofar as housing with partners, benefits, etc goes. That can possibly be prevented by writing legislation properly, but with or without that legislation, the courts are going to eventually step in and make this all happen anyway. I would much prefer it happen legislatively than through the courts. Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 16, 2010 12:12 PM (f9c2L) They already have become a "protected" group. And yes it is much better to have Congress change this than the courts. But DADT was working fine and what most concerns me is the "bUllshit" that is going to come with this. Sensitivity training, which already takes more of my time than I care to think about, and the shit that is gonna fly when a "gay" service member has to be written up.

199 Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 12:00 PM (Ki7fm)

Until post 166, I hadn't seen any "hate" directed at gays on the thread.  (Falvius, I really hope you're missing a /sarc tag or something there).

You, on the other hand, went directly from "we think it's a bad idea, and here's why" (admittedly, in the unique style of Moron Nation) to "anti-gay" and "homo-hate."

Then you complain about being called out on Trolling.

Well, Ford, answer the question several of us have asked: given your own statement that there are a lot of gays already in the military, why is DADT so repulsive that it needs to be removed?

200

so you are implying that supporting gay rights is a "slippery slope" to islamofascism?

I am thinking you are being a little flamboyant and hissy?

Idiot. You libtards love the islamofacists and forcing people to accept the gay agenda. Do you not see the conflict?

201 What's funny about Brown is that he ran as far more conservative than the way he's voting.

202 I'm gonna drive my Saturn down to D.C.!!!

203 Wait until the Navy has LGBT dances at the Enlisted Club.  And they will.  Wonderful.  Fucking wonderful.

Posted by: SurferDoc at December 16, 2010 12:13 PM (o3bYL)

Once this goes into affect there will be no way that gay soldier won't be allowed to bring his or her gay partner to any social event. Troops coming home greeted with hugs and kisses from their gay partners etc.

Kids asking why are those men kissing each other. Fuck this a bad idea.

204 #186 Agreed. The gay person who joins the forces will probably be someone from a background that was supportive of American values.

205
Well...transsexuality is an interesting question.

Do you support their right to serve openly or not?

206 The Congress is talking about the "special training" and new disciplinary rules that will govern the military now.

So any resistance to a homosexual, any complaints, will now be subject to a "hate crime" of some sort?

Homosexuals will be a protected class?

What about the special medical (high risk) needs they have? 

207 Just the tip of the iceberg but JAG will be mighty busy. Posted by: CDR M at December 16, 2010 12:18 PM (5I8G0) Amen and I am stilling waiting for the explanatoin of how this makes us a better fighting force?

208 You all are mixing up the RINO thing...
since when do you have to be anti-gay to be a Republican?

Since when does repealing, or not,  DADT have anything to do with being anti-gay?

209

I'm still waiting for this question to be answered.

Where did Maybee, and that Ford idiot and Jeffb go? How about it Chi-whatever?

 

Why are you fighting for homosexual men to billet together with each other and heterosexual men, and for homosexual women to billet with each other and heterosexual women, but not for heterosexual males and heterosexual women to billet together?

210 But the guy who dresses up and goes to gay parades... he aint joining the military.

Why not?  It's the same reason healthy, rational, heterosexual males go to hippie protest marches.

211 I'm trying to figure out how Scott Brown's election made any difference about anything.  Other than the immediate electoral shock to the dems, the legislative effect of having that shitbag around is a big donut hole, if not an actual negative.  He's a vote for the left and they know it.
Posted by: iknowtheleft at December 16, 2010 12:16 PM (G/MYk

Yep. I didn't take a particularly strong position on the COD/Castle race. In the aftermath of the election though I was thinking that the Castle supporters might have been right.

Now? Hell no. We get no benefit from people like Brown or the Maine Sisters. They aren't RINOs, they are DIABLOs - Democrats In All But Name Only.

212 Dagny. No, I do not see the conflict in people exercising their God given right to LIBERTY. It is hilarious that you think that I am a moonbat because I support the repeal of DADT. You must know that a gay person now serving in our forces deserves better than this ...right?

213 Agreed. The gay person who joins the forces will probably be someone from a background that was supportive of American values.

Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 12:18 PM (Ki7fm)

I am the poster boy for All American values, aren't I?

214

I know how troops are billeted. I served in the USMC for five years. I keep asking why heterosexual men and women cannot billet together even though you are in favor of homsexual men billeting with other homosexual men and heterosexual men.

Yes...can someone please explain this.  Name one reason why men and women of our military can't now bunk together, shower together, shit together...you name it.  Why not?

215 It is hilarious that you think that I am a moonbat because I support the repeal of DADT. You must know that a gay person now serving in our forces deserves better than this ...right?

Posted by: ford the IINO

 

It's pathetic that you still dodge questions that are put to you.

216
Of course the flamboyant homosexual is going to enlist!

There is not a doubt that this will happen.

This repeal is all about one thing: Causing trouble. Or, as the Leftists put it, "challenging the norms of our [Western-capitalist-judeo-christian] society.

217 Well...transsexuality is an interesting question.

Do you support their right to serve openly or not?



After all, they're born that way.

Oh, wait...

218 ford, why are you so interested in subjecting young gay men (I guess women are still exempt) to the draft?

219 Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 12:22 PM (Ki7fm)

Deserves better that WHAT?  You still haven't answered the question: what is so horrible about DADT that it must be repealed?  Explain it to us, because we're not seeing it.

220 I am the poster boy for All American values, aren't I? Posted by: PFC Manning at December 16, 2010 12:22 PM (7BU4a) you and the pshyco shrinko are the 2 best examples of how "protected" groups are treated differently by the PC Military to the extreme detriment of the Armed Serves and the United States of America.

221
Still no answer on the rights of the transsexuals...

222

Hope Scott Brown did not sign a long term lease  in DC.  He's cooked.

Posted by: palinbot #2,503,588 at December 16, 2010 12:15 PM (K/USr)

I don't think Scott Brown will get reelected anyway, regardless of how many times he stabs us in the back and sells out conservatives and Republicans.

I think his election was a fluke. The anti-Democrat fervor was building fast and the Dems had refused to take notice of it. His support in MA caught them by surprise until the later stages of the election. It was a wake-up call.

You can see how they realized that they had a problem and took actions to offset going into the 2010 elections. Tey revved up their GOTV effort which is better than the Repubs (largely because of unions) and managed to hang on to the rest of the blue States.

He will lose in the next run he has.

223 Why not?  It's the same reason healthy, rational, heterosexual males go to hippie protest marches.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 16, 2010 12:20 PM (T0NGe)

HA... I have a couple Marines in my family... those flaming fags would never make it through the Marine training.

They arent joining.

224
heh, Jeff B.

You *know* you're right when Jeff B. disagrees with you.

225 You are not in contact with reality if you think that it is still better for New England to have moderate Republicans...otherwise that House and Senate would still be in Obie's hands.. are you so blind, that you make us your frienemies? You can't win without some of the Northeast, and conservative, anti abortion candidates always lose here. The Pubs HAD to stop running them, or stop running. facts are hard to accept sometimes.

226
still waiting for an answer for transsexual rights in the military, ford

227 heh, Jeff B.

You *know* you're right when Jeff B. disagrees with you.

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer

 

Cowards, all of them. And intellectually dishonest. They will not answer the questions put to them regarding readiness, will not even consider the prospect of protected minority status and repeatedly ignore the proposed double standard we've noted regarding billeting.

And several of them have doubled down by using loaded terms such as 'hate' and anti-gay.

228

It is hilarious that you think that I am a moonbat because I support the repeal of DADT. You must know that a gay person now serving in our forces deserves better than this ...right?

Better than what? Flaunting sexual preferences? Huh?

How are you promoting liberty by making people get up close and personal with activities they find, at the minimum, distracting?

MY liberty is infringed upon when I have to keep my children from seeing homosexual displays of affection, when I have to worry who is in the ladies room with me, etc. Why is it only certain people who have the right to be offended? 

229 They arent joining.

I'm reminded of the challenge to the Citadel's all-male rule.  The girl who fought to join washed out almost immediately, even with relaxed physical requirements.

But she proved her point and made a statement.

230 211 WTG.  Their arguments are bunk.

231 facts are hard to accept sometimes.

Posted by: ford the IINO.

So is this question apparently.

Why are you fighting for homosexual men to billet together with each other and heterosexual men, and for homosexual women to billet with each other and heterosexual women, but not for heterosexual males and heterosexual women to billet together?

232 The only difference Brown's election made was for PR purposes. He will be conservative at all and he will only be moderate on fiscal bills and some defense stuff. No matter what he does he will not be reelected, unless he switches parties which I would say has a 50-50 shot of happening.

233
they're taking their cues from the Left.

They think they can intimidate us and shut down debate with  you're a racist, bigot, hater, homophome.

234 they're taking their cues from the Left.

They think they can intimidate us and shut down debate with  you're a racist, bigot, hater, homophome.

Posted by: Senator Soothsayer

 

Then they came to the wrong site. I'm still waiting for one of these cowards to respond.

235 I love how everyone is defending Scott Brown. It always falls on, "well he's better than having another Ted Kennedy. It's baby steps." Baby steps to what? If the Dem and the GOP both vote the same what are we marching people to exactly? Seems like big government. At least if we had another Ted Kennedy we could draw a line and make an argument about what conservatism is and how it would be far better. How do you do that when the elected GOP votes the exactly the same as Ted Kennedy? Or they claim "he's weak on this or that but good on fiscal issues." Which is utter bullshit. Because Brown isn't strong on fiscal issues. None of these RINO's are. Everyone uses this tired line about fiscal issues and then act surprised when the RINO's betray them on every important fiscal vote. Being a RINO isn't about being socially liberal. It's about having no principles and destroying this nation for more money and personal power. Stop defending Scott Brown while he destroys the nation.

236 Hey ford, suck my cock.

237 he will only be moderate on fiscal bills

I'd take that, actually, but I haven't seen it.  I really wouldn't mind (honest) social liberalism if it were married to fiscal conservatism.  Unfortunately, Snowe, Collins and Brown ain't exactly fiscal hawks.

238

What about the very "feminine" male gay?  Does the military have to have standards of behavior in this respect?  I really see this whole situation blowing up in congresses face.  I assume the military can't stop a full blown flammer from enlisting.  By the way, some of you will say I am "homophobic", no, just stating facts.  Will we have two very feminine male Marines dancing and kissing at the annual  Marine Corp Ball, held at every Marine Corp base?  Just wondering?  These issues are going to come up, I don't care if it offends someone...they are going to come up.

239 You can't win without some of the Northeast, and conservative, anti abortion candidates always lose here. The Pubs HAD to stop running them, or stop running.

facts are hard to accept sometimes.

Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 12:27 PM (Ki7fm)

What value do we get by having liberals with Rs next to their name instead of Ds?

240 Name one reason why men and women of our military can't now bunk together, shower together, shit together...you name it.

They'd get nothing done but process the harassment accusations from the women?  Only a valid argument if you believe the military exists for something other than providing a (meager) paycheck to rednecks too stupid to be John F'n Kerry, I suppose.

Kids asking why are those men kissing each other. Fuck this a bad idea.

Hey, that's part of the sex ed curriculum for K-5 in some states. 

241 My best friend went to the USAFA and graduated in '63.  He laughs when he talks about when women were allowed to enter the academy and the commanding officers were shocked, shocked to find fucking going on between the males and females.  That's what happens when you put young, healthy males and females together in a confined place.  Idiots.

242 "I've got a BONE to lick with you, Thergeant Thillypants!" I, for one welcome our new and improved military. What could possibly go wrong?

243 There was an episode in Seinfeld when Seinfeld closed the show with a monologue about why straight men are worried about gay men... because straight men are a little worried that they can be talked in to anything. The reason this was funny is because it is a little true. DADT does not make a path for a gay person in a sustainable , realistic to stay in the military without creating a beard family, or elaborate ability to hide all details of their personal life. It also can create a way others can use gayness rumors to keep another soldier down. DADT can work in the short term, but over the life of a career military person, who is gay ,this is not reasonable. If someone makes the sacred vow to preserve, protect and defend the USA, I think they deserve OUR BACK.

244 What about the very "feminine" male gay?

Won't sign up--they might break a nail.

245 he will only be moderate on fiscal bills

I'd take that, actually, but I haven't seen it.  I really wouldn't mind (honest) social liberalism if it were married to fiscal conservatism.  Unfortunately, Snowe, Collins and Brown ain't exactly fiscal hawks.

Posted by: AmishDude

 

Silence. Your betters will decide what is good for you. You messed up the golden opportunity to be served by a Sen. Mike Castle, and we won't allow that mistake to be repeated. We were deprived of a fiscal god (who voted for cap and trade and the DREAM act).

We will eventually tell you the ;atest meaning of fiscal repsonsibility.

Until then, shut up.

 

Warning: Slight sarcasm content

246

I think his election was a fluke. The anti-Democrat fervor was building fast and the Dems had refused to take notice of it. His support in MA caught them by surprise until the later stages of the election. It was a wake-up call.

Posted by: Vic at December 16, 2010 12:25 PM (e4sSD)

That and Choadley was a horrendously bad candidate even by Massaholits commiecrat standards.

247
Separate quarters are based on two things.

1) Sexual attraction.
2) Privacy.

1.--Think of men and women as magnets, each with negative and positive polarity. You don't bunk men and women together unless you want a fuck-fest/breakup-problem/jealousy problem on your hands.

2. Privacy. Both men and women like to be able sleep, bathe and do certain things without worrying about being ogled or judged.

 

248

Why is it only certain people who have the right to be offended? 

Posted by: dagny at December 16, 2010 12:30 PM (aTI8L)

Because we're only offended by by really bad things.

249

It also can create a way others can use gayness rumors to keep another soldier down.

Except that's not how the law works. Obviously the level of political correctness veers to the opposite extreme, see "Soldier of Allah" and "PFC Manning".

250 By the way at all colleges the kids bunk together on the same floor, use the same bathrooms regardless of their sexual identity. My son and his( heteros) roomate, share a bathroom with 7 girls right now. His observation is that the girls really loose their "luster" when you live that close to them. All the sanitary napkins get on his nerves..and they don't flush.. There are gay guys who room with straight guys on all college campuses..

251

an episode in Seinfeld when Seinfeld closed the show with a monologue about why straight men are worried about gay men...

because straight men are a little worried that they can be talked in to anything. The reason this was funny is because it is a little true.

Posted by: ford

So you actually argued a negative point regarding men who are heterosexual, and your source is a formulaic situation comedy show? Is this another one of your 'facts'?

You still haven't answered this:

Why are you fighting for homosexual men to billet together with each other and heterosexual men, and for homosexual women to billet with each other and heterosexual women, but not for heterosexual males and heterosexual women to billet together?

252 I'm thankful for our volunteer military force, but I am frankly astonished that anyone wants to volunteer with the O regime in charge.

253

because straight men are a little worried that they can be talked in to anything. The reason this was funny is because it is a little true.

Really? Hey morons, any of you think you could be talked into it?

254

What value do we get by having liberals with Rs next to their name instead of Ds?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 16, 2010 12:33 PM (7BU4a)

None. The Northeast and California would have been written off long ago except for fund raising. Te Repub parties in those area exist solely to determine who gets wealth distribution, not if. This is the main reason liberal Repubs will go for any social issue. It has nothing to do with cash so why say no? 

255 Just because I am supporting the repeal of DADT does not mean all the funny snark is not flat out superb here... Jeff.LOL.

256 For dome reason this discussion seems centered on male homosexuality. I think more lesbians will be joining than male homosexuals. What about the very "masculine" female girl.? What happens at the Marine Ball held on every base when she starts taking all the best young chicks away from the guys ?

257 I'm thankful for our volunteer military force, but I am frankly astonished that anyone wants to volunteer with the O regime in charge. Posted by: palinbot #2,503,588 at December 16, 2010 12:41 PM (K/USr) 1) Many of us are still patriotic regardless of who the President is 2) Some need the job since the economy sucks on the outside 3) the bennies are good

258
Why do you think the Leftist academics pushed for those co-ed dorms?

It was a way to un-teach the kids everything they learned at home.

On campus, right is wrong, up is down.

Challenge those norms, kids!

259 By the way at all colleges the kids bunk together on the same floor, use the same bathrooms regardless of their sexual identity.

 

More bullshit.

1.No, not all colleges allow this

2. At some colleges, all housing is like this

3. At others, this is an option.

4. there's a small difference between a college dorm and a squad bay in Okinawa you blithering idiot. (hint: at the former, a phone call can get you out of that dorm or out of the college entirely. The latter? Not so much).

260 Hey ford, jr. Watch out for yer cornhole, bud.

261

#187:  "the courts are going to eventually step in and make this all happen anyway.  I would much prefer it happen legislatively than through the courts."

The Congress can remove the issue from the courts just as easily as they can repeal DADT. In fact, there are plenty of military-related issues Congress should be removing from the courts' purview in the post-Hamdan world.

262
I couldn't be talked into fucking Madonna, even if she shaved her armpits, much less letting a dude touch me.

263 DADT can work in the short term, but over the life of a career military person, who is gay ,this is not reasonable.

One of the things that I've noticed about "pro-gay" heterosexuals is their tendency to de-anthropomorphize gays.  That is, to de-humanize them.

Most of the arguments on this thread are of the form, "If I, as a heterosexual, were placed in a position in which I would be sexually attracted to the people I bunk, shower and live with 24/7 in close quarters, there would eventually be a problem because of my own personal weaknesses and those of all human beings."

But you, ford, and others, seem to feel as if gays are not normal people, that their sexual desires aren't actually sexual or desires, that it's more philosophical, like some sort of watered-down new-age pseudo-Buddhism.

To you, they aren't people and you don't truly accept their homosexuality.  Instead, they are alien children whom you pity from afar.  Or they are handicapped and so to be pitied in that way.

Unlike you, I don't think that homosexuals are so mentally ill that we need to engage in legal gymnastics for no other purpose than allowing the state to serve as a force for psychological reinforcement.  It's condescending and it's bigoted and you should be ashamed.

264 I couldn't be talked into fucking Madonna, even if she shaved her armpits, much less letting a dude touch me. Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at December 16, 2010 12:45 PM (uFokq) That's what Bourbon, Vodka, and Beer is for

265 Unlike you, I don't think that homosexuals are so mentally ill that we need to engage in legal gymnastics for no other purpose than allowing the state to serve as a force for psychological reinforcement.  It's condescending and it's bigoted and you should be ashamed.

Posted by: AmishDude

 

This is inspired.

266 I couldn't be talked into fucking Madonna, even if she shaved her armpits, much less letting a dude touch me.


Posted by: Senator Soothsayer (R-AoS) at December 16, 2010 12:45 PM (uFokq)

That's what Bourbon, Vodka, and Beer is for

Posted by: nevergiveup

 

By the bucketful. All together. Because to seperate them would be hopsophobic

267 How does DADT benefit America and the military? I can think of ways it damages the military but I still haven't heard how it improves our military. That always seems to missing in these cases. It's always change for change's sake. And that road leads to ruin.

268 So as one way to combat this outrage, perhaps Republican leaders should *loudly* take about reinstating the pre-DADT rule if they retake the Senate and Presidency in 2012?

At the very least it will put a lot of pressure on the Obama regime to minimize how awful this is going to be. It would be harder for the Obamunists to excuse the San Fran version of Tailhook or "tolerance training" if they know it will be used by the opposition...

269 Why is it everyone you see, well 99%, who support this, never have served and never will?

270 141

I agree that the hate directed to homosexuality here is more than a little disturbing.

Posted by: ford the IINO. Independent in name only at December 16, 2010 12:00 PM (Ki7fm)

Go screw yourself. You're tossing around your fair amount of hate at others here simply because they don't support repeal of DADT.  How many times have you personally insulted many here as bigots when they've posed their opposition to repeal of DADT based purely on the substantial potential negative impact on the U.S. military?  But I guess the form of "hate" you're displaying is different, right?

BTW, keep providing your analogies between the military and various other situations, like college dorms, as this illustrates perfectly that you don't understand the unique aspects of military life. Soldiers are trusting their lives with their fellow soldiers so unit trust and cohesiveness is of utmost importance, unlike college students who live on the same floor, genius.

271
This vote was something like 250-176 in the House.

How many R's voted for it?

272 How does DADT benefit America and the military?

You know that is one of the core questions. You've got defenders of repeal arguing it won't be that bad...on particularly weak grounds, but NO ONE arguing how this actually helps our military while it is fighting a war.

273 Why is it everyone you see, well 99%, who support this, never have served and never will? Posted by: Mr Pink at December 16, 2010 12:50 PM (tpS7j) Well that's easy, because only 4% of us have ever served or are serving. But your point is accurate

274

This is a further assault on the hetero sexual white male.  If that statement makes me look racist so be it.  The nuclear family with a Father, Mother and children has been destroyed by loose social morays and government policies.  In nearly every advertisement the white male is a sexless baffoon.  In a similar manner the black male is sexy and the homosexual male is wise and cool.  I was raised in a different society.  When I was in the military, guys went hunting for gays to beat up and rob.  I didn't approve of it then or now.  Blacks and whites were at each other's throats, when they weren't in combat.  That was also wrong.  I don't know how the military functions now with the preponderence of lawyers running things.  Further integration of women has led to ships being taken off line to offload pregnant women.  I suppose they had to put on a fresh batch of ladies.

The military will have to put up with it but, for the most part, overt homosexual behavior creeps hetero sexual males out,  especially warrior types in their twenties.  Resentments will run high.  Unit cohesion  is diminished.  There will be fights.  There will be guys who refuse to go on patrol with a openly gay male if he is perceived to be less than a warrior.  The warrior may be more willing to run for cover with another warrior if he perceives him to be his best chance of survival, leaving the homosexual on his own.  Following orders from a homosexual superior will be done grudgingly which does not promote the best unit proficiency. 

Finally, the best warriors may take up Petraeus' aid's offer of, and I paraphrase here, if you don't like it get out, leaving the USA diminished as a military power.

Another sign America is in decline.  We are boned.

275 On balance, RINOs are a liability NOT an asset.

They are insidious, and corrosive to the Republican Party.

276

Why are you fighting for homosexual men to billet together with each other and heterosexual men, and for homosexual women to billet with each other and heterosexual women, but not for heterosexual males and heterosexual women to billet together?

Posted by: Blue Hen
-----------
I'm not fighting for it!  I would prefer DADT remain.  But that's not gonna happen.  The courts are going to rule against it eventually (already have actually).

I would much prefer Congress repeal it and put in some sane policy to replace it.  That also looks unlikely.

All's I'm saying is that I think everyone is making a bigger deal of this than it warrants.  I could be wrong.. I never served in the military, though my two older brothers served in the Air Force and Army during Viet Nam (I got a very high lottery number and was very glad to not have to go to that hell-hole Viet Nam).  So like I said.. I could be wrong.. But the bottom line is the courts will repeal it very soon if Congress does not act.  I would much prefer to see it done slowly and thoughtfully by the Pentagon than all at once forced by the courts.

277

For want of a nail homosexual the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail homosexual.

That doesn't seem to work, does it?

278 Thank ghod for Scott Brown

279 But the bottom line is the courts will repeal it very soon if Congress does not act.  I would much prefer to see it done slowly and thoughtfully by the Pentagon than all at once forced by the courts.

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry

 

This was already countered. Congress can place this out of the domain of the Courts. They aren't. It's yet another false crisis.

 

And that begs the quetion as to whether it will be implemented any differently.

280 If someone makes the sacred vow to preserve, protect and defend the USA, I think they deserve OUR BACK.

Was that one o them there Froodian slips ford?

281 But the bottom line is the courts will repeal it very soon if Congress does not act.  I would much prefer to see it done slowly and thoughtfully by the Pentagon than all at once forced by the courts.

You can do this as "slowly and thoughtfully" as you want, it is bad policy and frankly during a time of war an outrage.

We can't even insure these guys can get to engage their franchise, but we apparently do have the ability and desire to completely destroy their social structure on a whim.

282

They are insidious, and corrosive to the Republican Party.

Posted by: pam at December 16, 2010 12:53 PM (uDwml)

I've been voting for years for lesser evils. No more.

If you had told me that Scott Brown would be nothing but a rubber stamp for Obama I certainly wouldn't have supported him financially.

Well, lesson learned Sen Brown. You opponent will be getting the money I gave you last time around.

283

Really? Hey morons, any of you think you could be talked into it?

Posted by: dagny at December 16, 2010 12:42 PM (aTI8L)

"Umm, I don't know Butthead. That's a lot of money. Maybe if we closed our eyes." /Beavis

284

Further integration of women has led to ships being taken off line to offload pregnant women.

However, many of them get rich. I guess it's another way to redistribute wealth.

285 But the bottom line is the courts will repeal it very soon if Congress does not act.  I would much prefer to see it done slowly and thoughtfully by the Pentagon than all at once forced by the courts.

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 16, 2010 12:53 PM (f9c2L)

Which is about the worst reason in the world to be doing it. This is just another reason why we need serious judicial reform. I do not believe for a minute that SCOTUS would repeal DADT. It would just open to big a door to judicial interference in the military. It would be akin to  SCOTUS ruling on the filibuster rule. The courts have no business in this.

286 but NO ONE arguing how this actually helps our military while it is fighting a war. Posted by: 18-1 at December 16, 2010 12:52 PM (7BU4a) That's because no one arguing in favor of repeal cares about the military. And I don't mean that to be provocative. I simply mean that their own agenda takes precedence. For gays it's getting gays into the military. For the left its another way to control and subvert the military into another feckless govt agency. And others want to display their tolerance for tolerance's sake. Kind of like how people voted for Obama to show they weren't racist. It's horribly myopic and ignores the negative aspects of repeal. But that's why America is dying. People are so focused on getting what they feel entitled to that they forget that it might be harmful to America. Change is almost never about making America better. It's always about getting what a certain group wants.

287 Guess I'm predictably riding the RINO bandwagon once again - I think this is a perfectly allowable vote.  And I guess I'm more okay with it than I otherwise might be because I predicted it would be the key issue on which Scott Brown would make his reelectoral bones back in January 2010...it just seemed like such a layup way of drawing sharp lines between him and the Jim DeMint wing of the GOP (which, let's face it, is utterly toxic in Massachusetts.)

I think Scott Brown actually looks like a re-election winner for the first time, even in a state that will guaranteed go big for Obama.

288 Instead, they are alien children whom you pity from afar.

That seems to be a defining characteristic of elite leftist who believes they're being "compassionate" to some group they secretly feel is beneath them. Poor urban people can't possibly be getting lunch at McDonald's because they like the taste of the fries, it could only be because there's not enough vegetable stands and their kids were brainwashed.

289

We should only elect Democrats....that way we are never disappointed.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 16, 2010 01:01 PM (OWjjx)

I guess the question is better formulated, how does electing liberals with an R next to their name advance conservative goals?

290 I think this is a perfectly allowable vote.

In the lame duck session?

291

But the bottom line is the courts will repeal it very soon if Congress does not act.  I would much prefer to see it done slowly and thoughtfully by the Pentagon than all at once forced by the courts.

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry

And this still begs the question of why we are going to treat heterosexual personnel differently from homosexual personnel? If the courts are forcing such advances and enlightenment, then why are we institutionalizing a double standard?

 

And as ssomeone else noteed earlier, why aren't we seing half as much effort in enabling those "sacred vow swearing folks" to vote?

292 That seems to be a defining characteristic of elite leftist who believes they're being "compassionate" to some group they secretly feel is beneath them.

Noblesse oblige.

293 Gays? You had better accept it or get out.

Absentee ballots?  Fuck you.

294 I think Scott Brown actually looks like a re-election winner for the first time, even in a state that will guaranteed go big for Obama.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 16, 2010 01:06 PM (NjYDy)

Looking at the rest of the MA elections in 2010 he is probably toast no matter what he does.

However, I will *actively* make sure that comes to be to the best of my ability.

295

How hard is it for these idiot senators to acknowledge that the American people just stated in no uncertain terms that they hate the direction the present Congress is taking the country, and that no major additional legislation should be enacted until the newly elected representatives are seated?

Obama's "Pentagon" study of DADT was completely fraudulent. All of its polling was based on the question of how destructive it would be if the respondents squad was to have a SINGLE homosexual. It never asked about the implications of the development of an out homosexual subculture, which is what the repeal of DADT would mean. There will be no limit on any kind of flaming. The gays will be out and proud and doing each other every which way from Sunday, needling straights with every kind of come on. There will be NO limit. That is what repealing DADT means. If they erase the DADT line, they aren't planning on drawing any OTHER line, and it will destroy our military.

296 Obama's "Pentagon" study of DADT was completely fraudulent. All of its polling was based on the question of how destructive it would be if the respondents squad was to have a SINGLE homosexual. It never asked about the implications of the development of an out homosexual subculture, which is what the repeal of DADT would mean

I have no idea what you are talking about.

297 On balance, RINOs are a liability NOT an asset.

They are insidious, and corrosive to the Republican Party.

We should only elect Democrats....that way we are never disappointed.

Posted by: Mallamutt

 

We'd also save money on the elections. For once we could claim to be fiscally conservative and it would be true.

298

 Gays? You had better accept it or get out.

Absentee ballots?  Fuck you.

 

That is an awesome point.

299

It's a matter of conscience.. as someone said above, homosexuality is a fact of life.

 

Many things are a fact of life, like Inbred-Columbia Professors fucking their own sons and daughters however just because Inbred-Columbia Professors are fucking their own children this fact of life does not allow Inbred-Columbia Professors the 'right to' fuck their own children-no matter how fucking butt-ugly skanky are the fucking regressive Inbred-Columbia Professors

I'd support repeal of DADT as long as all Heteros serving will enjoy the same 'right to' sue Homos for sexual harrassment;  of course, 'hate crimes' as they stand today discriminate against Heteros since THE LAW denies Heteros the right to sue for homosexual harassment.

 

300

However, I will *actively* make sure that comes to be to the best of my ability.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 16, 2010 01:10 PM (7BU4a)

Yeah. Be prepared to hear a lot of "you purists cost us the Senate" crapola.

301 Gays? You had better accept it or get out.

Absentee ballots?  Fuck you.

Posted by: SurferDoc

 

It's a shame that over a dozen people are dead or dying, and that they're still piecing people back together. But my priority is diversity, not the protected minority status that allowed a snap case to elude a padded room or the 'gun free' zone that made troops more vulnerable than if they were in downtown Baghdad.

302 Be prepared to hear a lot of "you purists cost us the Senate" crapola.

Posted by: K~Bob

 

I'm still waiting for the  'realists' to tell me when the truce on social issues was called off.

303 290

I've been voting for years for lesser evils. No more.

If you had told me that Scott Brown would be nothing but a rubber stamp for Obama I certainly wouldn't have supported him financially.

Well, lesson learned Sen Brown. You opponent will be getting the money I gave you last time around.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 16, 2010 01:01 PM (7BU4a)

I'm with you on this. I gave money to Brown, too. However, 99.9% of the reason I did it was to stop by the health care bill. Although not Brown's fault, he ended up not even being useful for that either. Whenever I hear about these fiscally conservative, socially liberal candidates, like Brown was supposed to be, they end up being strongly liberal on social issues and moderate or liberal on fiscal issues.  Nonetheless, Brown will be done in 2012 anyway. Massachusetts is a Left-wing haven (as seen by the results there in November) and the Democrats will find a better liberal candidate that is a huge improvement over Martha Coakley. I bet Brown loses by double-digits in the next general election despite him doing his best to appeal to his liberal constituents with his support for policies like repeal of DADT.

Unlike some of those that continually tell conservatives (like moi) that we need to support RINOs to have a majority, I think we should start only supporting conservative candidates and make every effort to convince voters in every state and every district that conservatism is the right direction. I supported what happened in Delaware with Christine O'Donnell, though we need to recruit better, more qualified candidates for this strategy to work.  It may take a few election cycles, but I think many (though not all obviously) states/districts that vote in RINOs (e.g., Maine) can be convinced to elect conservative candidates, especially fiscal conservatives who don't have as much baggage and more personal accomplishments than O'Donnell.

304 http://bit.ly/gfqOPv long discussion of DADT. It's not a civil right. Lawsuits and cost are the two paramount issues.

305

This is a rhetorical question, but why the heck is the Political Class trying to socially re-engineer the military while we are engaged in 2 wars right now?  This malfeasance being committed by our "betters" has got to be an huge distraction for rank and file soldiers who are putting their asses on the line for this country. 

306

I'm also wondering how the Afghan practice of pederasty (Thursday Night) may come into play here—the dancing boys would prove to be quite tempting to a homosexual serving on a PRT, although I think this practice speaks more to the subhumans who inhabit Afghanistan; not to mention this practice already violates our Trafficking in Persons training. The whole region should be depopulated.  

And as far as this being an integrity issue, the flag-oÂ’s who cite this should be beaten severely.  Anyone in the military who claims that every aspect of his personal life should be on public display is a fucking liar. IÂ’m probably breaking about 10 articles of the UCMJ just blogging here (only because of the winter storm).      

 

307 The result of the current direction:

"Hey, your making me walk point because I'm gay"

"The CO wants me to go down on her or she's gona make my life hell"

Who want to deal with that shit? No one that is interested in commiting their life to the protection of Liberty, thats for sure.

The next thing is that as a "protected class" the gays will accumulate with the resulting loss of respect.

Soon calling a Marine a "faggot' takes on a whole new meaning.

308

 the Democrats will find a better liberal candidate that is a huge improvement over Martha Coakley

 

Reporting for duty

309 310

Yeah. Be prepared to hear a lot of "you purists cost us the Senate" crapola.

Posted by: K~Bob at December 16, 2010 01:16 PM (mSx/N)

You're definitely right, but I have to laugh at those that say this. As if getting back control of the Senate with a bunch of liberal Republicans like Brown, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, et al., is really beneficial in the long run. On any controversial issue, which are usually a 50/50 split and decided by only a few votes, we can always count on these moderates to stab conservatives in the back anyway. This a much less of a problem for Democrats and their so-called moderates, isn't it?

310

Yeah. Be prepared to hear a lot of "you purists cost us the Senate" crapola.

Posted by: K~Bob at December 16, 2010 01:16 PM (mSx/N)

I don't give a fig anymore. Whether we "win" or lose elections the left wins on the issues either way. Might as well go out with a fight instead of a whimper.

311

I supported what happened in Delaware with Christine O'Donnell, though we need to recruit better, more qualified candidates for this strategy to work

 

Dude, I can't be everywhere.

312 No, let Democrats elect Democrats....and let the public be "disappointed" in Democrat policies.

For Republicans to be involved in policies that hurt our nation...does ZERO for their future electoral prospects.

313

This is a rhetorical question, but why the heck is the Political Class trying to socially re-engineer the military while we are engaged in 2 wars right now?  This malfeasance being committed by our "betters" has got to be an huge distraction for rank and file soldiers who are putting their asses on the line for this country. 

Posted by: runningrn

 

Because colleges being embarrassed by their dicriminatory double standards is more importanty than whether troops live or die, or vote, or have any measure of equal treatment.

314
Can I get a refund on my contribution to the Brown campaign?

He didn't stop Obamacare.

He won't stop DADT repeal.


Uggh.

315 A view of the post-DADT military:

316

I am not a particularly religious person. So this issue, to me....just doesn't hit my Top 10. It probably doesn't hit my Top 20. And for a fair number of people here, I suspect it doesn't crack their Top 10. Its just another excuse to bitch about someone who didn't vote the way they wanted that person to vote. Because to them....if you stray once from conservative orthodoxy....that is it....outcast, bannished, gone. 

 

Newsflash: It is possible to oppose abortion, or wrecking the military through the installation of yet another protected minority on other than religious grounds.

None of those here opposed this new bill on religious grounds. And note that the cheerleaders refuse to even answer our questions.

 

As for orthodoxy, look at variations between 'conservative Dems and liberal Republicans. Which group on average, strays for their party's platform more?

317

 You can't win without some of the Northeast, and conservative, anti abortion candidates always lose here. The Pubs HAD to stop running them, or stop running

Which is why massive numbers of free-thinking independent taxpayers are wisely running far, far away from the Northeast as well as the Left Coast.

Soon the only idiots remaining will be stuck forever miserable in their NE Lefty Coast State of  Serfdom where Mommy-Nanny Bloomberg von LSD Brown will dictate the Lives of Other Useless Idiots.  Suckas.

Myself fled, thank God Almighty I AM FREE AT LAST! 

(One of these days the NE will have to take a bigger steps than the weeny baby steps they only know how to take)

 

318 This is a rhetorical question, but why the heck is the Political Class trying to socially re-engineer the military while we are engaged in 2 wars right now?  This malfeasance being committed by our "betters" has got to be an huge distraction for rank and file soldiers who are putting their asses on the line for this country.


It's a war on normalcy, a war on the basic traditional institutions of our culture (the family, the churches, the military).

If you look at the homosexual movement's underlying philosophy, you'll see that they couldn't care less about marriage or military service or religion EXCEPT as those things are roadblocks to full and mandatory "acceptance" of homosexuality.

319 See, here is where I get lost at the "nominate the most conservative candidate" junction. Certain districts/states are not going to elect Jim DeMint. So, running Jim DeMint in Vermont proves................... what? That maybe people will hear a conservative message, think about it and years later maybe, just maybe vote for that candidate?

If the choice is run a liberal and get a liberal with an R or run a conservative and get a liberal with a D next to his name and maybe open peoples' eyes down the road, I see only one choice with anything positive attached to it.

So, here is the better question: on what issues,  18-1, Pam, Soothsayer, Vic...can a republican stray and not be RINO? Because I and others would really, really like to know. And think about that before you answer: because once the line is drawn...it is drawn.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way actually, and I return to my original question. How does electing people that will not support the conservative agenda advance the conservative agenda? Does someone have to agree with *every* element of the agenda? No. However, I will point out to you that the supposed moderate Democrats have lined up behind Obama on most of his extreme agenda. Supporting DADT, for God's sake, is about as moderate as one could imagine.

320 Dicks all around!

321

Morons, how many of you object to showering with gay men strictly on religious grounds?

Didn't think so.

Spare me the religion bashing.

322 So, here is the better question: on what issues,  18-1, Pam, Soothsayer, Vic...can a republican stray and not be RINO?

I don't know what is left to answer for me on this. I have stated this over and over again. I use an ACU rating along with other factors to determine RINOism.

In general it works like this, above 90 you are pretty much considered good and non-RINO

Between 80 and 90 you are suspect RINO and other factors must come into play. A propensity to cross over on important bills and to "break the cloture vote" pushes you into the RINO category (hello Lindsay Graham)

Below 80 you ARE RINO on ACU alone.

Below 50 you are DIABLO because you vote with Dems more than Repubs (Hello ME sisters and Voin-a-bitch))

323 You can't win without some of the Northeast, and conservative, anti abortion candidates always lose here. The Pubs HAD to stop running them, or stop running

You realize Maine has a tea party Governor, and NH just elected a very conservative Representative in Rep Frank Gunita...right?

324 Rino's exposed themselves thoroughly this year....Murk, Crist, Castle, Brown, etc....all proved that they are truly Democrats who simply lied to get elected.

Rinos use the MSM to attack Conservatives....not to attack Democrats...they use Democrat funds for their do-over campaigns after losing to a Conservative, they threaten to caucus with the Dems, they take calls of encouragement from Obama, they jump parties in a heartbeat, and on and on.

Their goal, their job is to marginalize conservatives and our platform...to defeat our policy preferences, they agitate for liberals and their ideology, and work to de-humanize conservatives as crazy, dumb, hicks, religious nuts, radicals, racists, homophobes, who want to starve children and kill old people.

THIS is what Rinos say and do EVERYDAY on TV...this is what they tell the public.

They are counter-productive, as evidenced by the mess we are in at this moment.

And anyone  who argues that Rinos are good for the Republican party, obviously have the same goals as the Rinos.

To defeat Conservatives.

And like Rinos, they are not honest in their intentions.

325

New Miltary Slogans:

"Don't worry, bro. I've got your 6...and your 9."

"Don't shoot until you see the white of their thighs."

"This is my rifle, this is my gun. Want to help me clean them?"

"SpooYage!"

326

So therein lies the issue: what are the core conservative issues that are non-negotiable and what aren't? It seems we define everything by what is not negotiable (whatever issue we are discussing) and never by what we feel is negotiable...or by waht reasonable people could reasonably disagree with.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 16, 2010 01:43 PM (OWjjx

Actually, I think you need to look at the overall picture. DADT is a compromise - one I can live with, and members of the military say they can live with.

The DADT repeal Obama wants is the leftwing position. Doing it in the lame duck session is specifically doing it to screw over conservatives.

Brown could easily punt the issue - refuse to vote for cloture on procedural grounds - and argue we should bring it up when the new congress is seated.

Then, at the very least, Obama would have to make deep concessions to let this abomination pass congress (arguably ones he would not make).

But no, Brown is going to take the leftwing position, help Obama ram it through the lame duck session, and specifically, and intentionally, screw over conservatives.

So I'm sorry, this is Brown's last straw. I can live with people who don't share all of my views, or are not as far to the right as I am on issues...fine. If As long as you are *fighting* to advance the agenda as a whole I have your back.

But these weasels in the Republican Party who continually help the left win on policy even when the right nominally wins elections  - like Brown - have got to go.

327

I actually got pretty bored with ford and the couple of others who felt it completely unnecessary to address any of the valid opposing points, so I scrolled down to the bottom. 

Did any of these tools (who likely have second hand experience with the military at best) ever resort to anything other than emotional bullshit and non sequiturs?

328 So therein lies the issue: what are the core conservative issues that are non-negotiable and what aren't?

So you completely defer your decision to the ACU. Fine. If that is how you feel, that is how you feel. Personally, I'd rather think for myself....but whatever

NO you didn't read what I said. There are some key issues that come up from time to time. You can't list them as a rule because a lot change from year to year.

Currently the ones on my list are health scam, crap and tax, gun control, and amnesty. In general belief in the Constitution ranks up there too but so many of them threw that out the window long ago you can't use without shit-canning all of them.

Some like the House version of crap and tax are so bad that if you voted for it ALONE it is an automatic RINO call and should be call for removal from office. (too bad we can't do that)

I have never said ACU rating alone is a call for NOT declaring RINO. If bad enough though, I will call RINO on it alone. 

329 the fact that the only true Republican/conservative/normal vote in the lamest duck Congress for over 7 decades is a loud "NAY!!!!" on everything but the tax extension and a temporary CR.  Nothing else should be passed by this lamest of lame ducks and no GOPer should vote with them on anything.

This.  Very much this.

If a GOPer wants to support DADT, then they should do it after the new Congress is seated.

Or you should have done it in October.  All of these lame duck bills are undermining democracy itself.

330 Currently the ones on my [deal breaker] list are health scam, crap and tax, gun control, and amnesty. In general belief in the Constitution ranks up there too but so many of them threw that out the window long ago you can't use without shit-canning all of them.

Agree exactly with your list.   

331

So as the Air Force goes through (another) round of downsizing (applying the ultimate euphemism of “Force Shaping”)—would openly homosexual officers be given the same consideration? 

332

I knew Scott Brown was a creepy asshole when I watched his speech the night that he won the election.

Watch: Creepy Scott Brown will make Arlen Spector look like a hardcore conservative.

333

So, here is the better question: on what issues,  18-1, Pam, Soothsayer, Vic...can a republican stray and not be RINO? Because I and others would really, really like to know. And think about that before you answer: because once the line is drawn...it is drawn.

Posted by: Mallamutt at December 16, 2010 01:25 PM (OWjjx)

I can never be accused of being a RINO because I wouldn't be a Republican if you put a gun to my head. NOR am I a "Conservative." But I have to caucus with some group, and Cons are the only serious contenders for anything that matters, politically, AFAIC.

But I hang with guys who served, and I come from a family with lots of veterans, so I know that reason must prevail if the military is to succeed. Having acknowledged gays--or women--in close quarters with what HAS TO BE a band of brothers does.not.work. The gay guy in that situation is toast, and the woman gets men killed. You can argue all the social and philosophical points you want, and you can imagine a better world, and you can start a movement, but you can not change human nature.

As far as "straying" goes: you are either for the principles embodied in the Constitution or you are not. If you support bigger Federal government, you have not "strayed," you were never "there" to begin with.

334

Posted by: a dead dog at December 16, 2010 01:33 PM (R2fpr)

So, again, where can you stray. Don't tell me where you can't stray....we get that everyday. Where can you stray? Its not a sarcastic question...it is a serious one....where is the line.?

Posted by: Mallamutt

 

Dunno. The conventional wisdom here is that one can be a fiscally responsible person and liberal as all Hell on social issues and that's all right.

Okey fine.

Then I'm told to support an idiot named Mike Castle who sometimes exhibits fiscal responsibility, sometimes does incredibly stupid things (cap and trade) and defends the fucking thing. And yeah, he's socially liberal as all Hell.

Having voted for that guy for the better part of 25 years, I learned to deal with the fact that he was diametrically opposite me on social issues. I even worked for the worm at least twice. 

But I'm supposed to ignore howlers like cap and trade as well now? As a matter of fact, I did, and voted for him in the primary. Is he a RINO? Probably. Is he a selfserving piece of shit? Yes.

So I'm turning the question around; where is MY line? When should I stop voting for a guy who sometimes votes for fiscal sanity, sometimes directly against all reality, and who I can count on to say piss off on social issues?

 

335 But the social issues aren't really social issues. Trying to get "inner city girls" to keep their knees together is a fiscal issue. Reinventing the military for gays is fiscal. Keeping families together is fiscal. Abortion is the only one that may fall on either side.

336 But the social issues aren't really social issues. Trying to get "inner city girls" to keep their knees together is a fiscal issue. Reinventing the military for gays is fiscal. Keeping families together is fiscal. Abortion is the only one that may fall on either side.

Posted by: dagny

 

We continue to massacre unborn innocents, while some of us note that the US is barely at the population replacement birthrate. Europe, which loves abortion (but oddly has more restrictions than the godbag afflicted US) is dying. And this will have a fiscal impact when there are are fewer working age people to support the aging population and the various ponzi schemes (SS anyone?).

337

#353 - IMHO, you showed good judgment by voting for Castle, instead of O'Donnell in your state's primary. As I've said before, I would rather have a so called "Rino" who votes with Republicans most of the time than a liberal Democrat who will never vote with Republicans.

But whereas most "Rinos" like Maine's ditzy twins, Castle, Graham and McCain are old fashioned, Rockefeller, liberal Republicans, some "Rinos" like Scott Brown are frauds and they're not Republicans by any stretch of anyone's wildest imagination. They are the slimiest of slimy Democrats who ran as Republicans only because they couldn't get the Democrat Party's nomination for whatever the reason; in Brown's case, I suspect, because affirmative action and cronyism came into play,  and the Democrats gave Martha Coakley preferential treatment, probably suggesting that Brown should run as a Republican, recognizing that it wold be a win-win election for Democrats either way.  Only a complete fool would have been gullible enough to have believed that Scott Brown was a Republican or even a Rino.

338

What makes you think that Castle would have voted with the Pubs "most of the time"? I keep seeing this sentence written about Castle and those other accused Rinos, yet they never seem to vote with the Pubs at all on anything of substance.And Castle went crying to Biden and Zero after he lost the primary, as well, so again, where's the eveidence?

339

Won’t choose to ‘deal with it’

STARS AND STRIPES
Letters to the Editor, December 15, 2010

So let me see if I understand this: The Defense Department is proposing to let people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle serve “openly” in the armed forces (per the Dec. 2 article “DADT study group: Full integration is best”), but won’t allow Christians such as myself the freedom to “openly” share the good news of Christ with our co-workers — as the faith we’ve chosen requires?

DOD officials plan to tell servicemembers who have a problem with those living a homosexual lifestyle to “learn to deal with it,” but they are prepared to counsel and/or slap Christians with paperwork if someone feels “offended” by our witness? Wearing sexual lifestyle choices on your sleeve is OK, but not your faith?

Military chaplains who teach that homosexuality is antithetical to and incompatible with Christianity (which it is) can either muzzle their objections or “leave,” but gays will be permitted to parade their lifestyle choices in front of all?

Bottom line: So IÂ’m free to express myself if IÂ’m a homosexual, but not if IÂ’m a Christian? What disgraceful hypocrisy.

Here’s the truth: I will continue to witness to who I want, when I want and where I want. My commitment to my God supersedes my commitment to the DOD and, if officials are upset about that, then I guess they can “learn to deal with it.”

Department of Defense? More like the Department of Double Standards.

Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey
Afghanistan

340 Recently wrote an article about this issue. It shows how this "movement" was fueled by the people and not about the issue. Check it out. http://tinyurl.com/2c633hs