You say that Carpenter is lying and that discharges did not go down. Prove it.

I already know what your answer will be, because you’re a coward who likes to smear people anonymously. You’re going to go off and spin about how you “can’t be bothered”.

You clearly did not read Carpenter’s statement, or you willfully denied what was clearly written there.

Given that I was using Carpenter’s “statistics” in my comment, anyone with even half a brain would know that I did read Carpenter’s statement, since I used them in my comment.

And, yes, I intentionally denigrated Carpenter’s “statistics.” So? Carpenter did not present a year-by-year indication (1984-1994) of the number of discharges based on homosexuality. Nor did he present a year-by-year indication of the number of discharges for other reasons–a statistic that would also have been of interest. And he ignored the fact of the Gulf War I in 1990-92 (or so)–it would have been interesting to see the discharge curve during that time frame–something that Carpenter studiously ignored providing.

The relevance of statistics such as those presented by Carpenter assumes a constant, which did not exist. There were a few little incidents–most notably Gulf War I–which may very well have skewed the numbers post 1988. Carpenter, the useful fool, appears to have ignored that.

BTW, reports are that military discharges of homos were reduced almost every year since 2001. One might seriously ask why. Was it because of the impending wars in Afghanistan and on Iraq? Curious minds want to know. But, rest assured, the Bushies’ malAdministration has finally set things straight. Homo discharges 2004-2005 increased by 11%, from 653 (2004) to 726 (2005). It’s nice to know that, given the demands that the Bushies have placed on the military, that the military will be more homo-free than before.

As for me being a leftist gay democratic liberal blah blah blah, I don’t even consider myself a Democrat and in a heck of a lot of issues, tend to lean more republican than anything. However, this administration is not very reflective of any sort of republican ideals I hold to be true. I don’t label myself in any case because as I stated earlier, I support financially those politicians who I agree with on most issues. It’d be hard to find many I agree with everything so you have to weigh what is important to you. In most cases, regardless of how “republican” you are and how much I might agree with you on so many issues, I will not support a politician (D or R) who supports FMA. Feel free to pain gay leftist democrats as generally as you want (though the generalizations are trite), but don’t throw me in the mix just because I refuse to support a failure of a President just to tow the party line.

You need not assume; Carpenter clearly points it out.

According to figures from the Defense Department, discharges for homosexuality declined every year between the first full year of the Reagan administration (1982) and the first full year of the Clinton administration (1994), for a net decline during the period of more than 70 percent.

You clearly did not read Carpenter’s statement, or you willfully denied what was clearly written there.

As for your background, one cannot say whether you actually did what you claim; however, based on your demonstrated duplicity, failure to read and comprehend, and willful neglect of facts, it is easy to explain why you are no longer doing it.

Of course, Raj, what you neatly leave out is that discharges were declining for eight years prior to the Gulf War in 1990 — which neatly makes hash of your argument that the reason for the decline was solely the Gulf War.

Your comment makes no sense. Saddam did not invade Kuwait until August 1990. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that discharges had been declining prior to 1990. That would be nice, but the question remains, at what rate were they declining? And, what rate of change were they declining subsequent to August 1990, versus before? The useful fool Carpenter doesn’t tell us that. He merely spouts a bunch of “statistics”–numbers without source, by the way, for his arbitrary window–which he wants to use to persuade us of his thesis.

Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.

It’s nice that the good professor Carpenter has got a gig with the Volohk group. I could relate an experience I had with Eugene, but I’ll refrain. I’ll also refrain from discussing my opinions regarding law professors. Having taught in law school, I do have a background on the issue.

And, BTW, what is a gay Republican to do? Vote Republican, of course!

As for your smear of Carpenter, we consider the source.

“What did WE do God to deserve that? Do you hate us that much?”

Are you aware of the statistics that Dale Carpenter once pointed out?

Actually, yes, I am.

Let’s investigate. Carpenter says that

(i) discharges for homosexuality declined every year between 1982 (the first year of St. Reagan’s administration) and 1994 (the first year of the Devil Clinton’s administration), for a net decline of 70%, and

(ii) beginning in 1994, the discharges increased, and, by 1998, they climbed above 1000 for the first time in 10 years.

Let’s take point (ii) first. Ten years before 1998 was 1988, and Carpenter acknowledges the fact that, in 1988 (the midpoint of the 1982-1994 time frame), the number of discharges was over 1000. So the decline of discharges 1982-1988 still left the number of discharges in 1988 above 1000. Carpenter doesn’t say how much above, but, still, above.

Let’s combine that with point (i). This will be an exercise in “how to lie with statistics”–some people (including me) call it “chosing your window in time carefully to support a point you want to make.” There was a little battle that went on sometime between 1988 and 1994, called the Gulf War I. It is fairly evident that the military, when gearing up for the first Saddam War in 1990-91, reduced the number of witch-hunts–and hence discharges–for homosexuality, because they would probably need the bodies for the upcoming conflict. Indeed, such was reported at the time in the Advocate. That may have been a significant reason for the reduction in discharges in the early 1990s.

BTW, although I find Carpenter a useful fool, I don’t take him too seriously. Shortly before the 2002 election, he published a column in the Texas Triangle–which, for some reason, is not archived at IndeGayForum–entitled “What is a gay Republican to do?” In the column, he sincerely lamented the Republican party’s stance on a number of equal-rights-for-gay-people issues, and–wonder of wonders!–he concluded: vote Republican, of course! Carpenter had been (at least until recently) blogging at Volohk.com, and his analyses are seriously lacking.

The simple truth is that most gays support the Democrat Party –irrespective of the crap that their leadership dispenses– because they share more in common with the political philosophies of victimhood, centralized govt powers, and BIG GOVT than do even Black Americans, eco-terrorists, voting felons, or illegal immigrants.

The GayLeft groups are fronts for Democrat grassroots action centers –just like Big Labor, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the tax&spend liberals.

The GayLeft groups are secondarily gay advocacy groups.

Kind of like the ReligiousRight –which tries to be primarily about the worship of God but seems to spend an increasingly high amount of resources and time on political advocacy, organizing, and voter mobilization for GOPers.

The DUmmies will be stopping by later to revoke your membership card and kick your teeth in.

Are you aware of the statistics that Dale Carpenter once pointed out?

The result is the most easily quantifiable harm done to actual gay people during the Clinton years. According to figures from the Defense Department, discharges for homosexuality declined every year between the first full year of the Reagan administration (1982) and the first full year of the Clinton administration (1994), for a net decline during the period of more than 70 percent. But in 1994 the number of antigay discharges began to rise and has risen every year since. On an annual basis, such discharges have more than doubled since 1994. In 1998, they climbed above 1,000 for the first time in 10 years.

Next:

And I think you and I both know what Clinton wanted wasn’t what he got and you and I both know why.

Hardly. I think the man was a rotten, lying homophobe who had no intention whatsoever of carrying through on his campaign promises. He got exactly what he wanted, which is gay money and unqualified endorsements while simultaneously kicking and spitting on them.

And why do you Republicans always bring up John Kerry saying that he thought gay marriage in MA should be overturned when he is simply agreeing with the stand you all take that gay marriage should not be forced on the people by judicial fiat but should be voted on by the people? Isn’t that how you all feel? Yet somehow he is antigay for saying the same thing?

LOL….gay leftist Democrats like you, Thomas, are the ones constantly shrieking that voting on these matters is “immoral”. But when Kerry does it, you call it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”, give him your unqualified endorsements, and channel tens of millions of dollars to him.

Explain to us your hypocrisy. Why do you and your fellow leftists call it antigay and “immoral” except when Democrats do it?

You know as well as I do that the Republicans that are in control of that party will never overturn DADT, they will never support gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples and they will certainly never view homosexuality as anything but a tool to have their bible beating base think they matter.

You forgot the concentration camps that you and your fellow Democrats insist exist. If we’re spinning fantasies, you might as well include them too.

In any case, DADT while falling very far from the goal of lifting a ban on gays serving in the military, it is still an improvement on the previous policy that banned them altogether and allowed the military to probe into their private lives and kick them out if they were suspected of being homosexual. It’s not a win, but its certainly a step in the right direction. And I think you and I both know what Clinton wanted wasn’t what he got and you and I both know why. Don’t play stupid with me, please.

And why do you Republicans always bring up John Kerry saying that he thought gay marriage in MA should be overturned when he is simply agreeing with the stand you all take that gay marriage should not be forced on the people by judicial fiat but should be voted on by the people? Isn’t that how you all feel? Yet somehow he is antigay for saying the same thing? I don’t like John Kerry, never did. And wouldn’t give him a dime to have him elected to city council of Poughkeepsie.

In any case, we all know FMA will not pass. So it’s hard to not see it as just a tool being used by Bill Frist and Rick Santorum to try to drum up support from their base so that they can be reelected. And this is the party YOU support?

You know as well as I do that the Republicans that are in control of that party will never overturn DADT, they will never support gay marriage or civil unions for gay couples and they will certainly never view homosexuality as anything but a tool to have their bible beating base think they matter. It’s absurd that in 2006 we’re even arguing over a federal amendment to define marriage. It’s embarrassing.

That’s because, Thomas, you aren’t capable of recognizing antigay activities when Democrats carry them out.

Stripping gays of rights? DADT? Firing gay people from their jobs in retaliation for their partners speaking out against homophobia? Saying gays should be legally discriminated against because they were born gay? All “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” to you when Democrats say them, and all worth tens of millions of dollars in support and unqualified endorsements.

“Loathe Howard Dean”, my foot.

It was a Democrat president who first stood at his bully pulpit and told America and the world that gay people had value, were patriotic and deserved respect and inclusion.

Which was that?

Was it DADT?

Was it DOMA?

Was it when he ran the radio ads stating proudly that, by supporting and signing both, he was defending “American values” — making it obvious that gays were not part of that?

Now, to another:

Hey, when is one of the Bush administration going to be interviewed by the Advocate and talk about gay inclusion in the Republican platform? Now that would be big news, wouldn’t it?

Or the corollary:

And now we have a president who doesn’t say the word “gay” in public and has never been photographed with an openly gay official.

And doing those would make everything better, right?

Don’t make me laugh.

Bush knows that the “gay community”‘s hatred of him isn’t based on his actions; John Kerry and Clinton proved that gays will pump tens of millions of dollars and unqualified endorsements to homophobic Democrats, even calling it “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” as they endorse laws and amendments stripping gays of rights. The hatred is based on the fact that he’s a Republican.

Since he’s not going to change the fact that he’s a Republican, why waste time on pandering? Stick with what you have and let the Democrats abuse the gay community by milking them dry, spitting on them on national TV, and then wasting a few hours at some HRC dinner or on a meaningless interview to buy back their affections.