A whopping 75% support among the general public according to new polling by The Washington Post & ABC News. Combined with the recently released study by retired military officers that “allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline or cohesion”, and we’re seeing a seismic shift in public attitudes that DADT simply cannot hope to withstand much longer. God willing, gays & lesbians will be able to freely and openly serve in the military one day soon…
— John (Average Gay Joe)
The sooner the better as far as I am concerned, John.
But, unless the federal courts intervene, it’s not likely to happen during the next four years if Senator McCain is elected president
So I guess that means you gung ho boys will be signing up for active duty soon. I always wonder why the people who say the support the war in Iraq don’t join up themselves?
#2: The final piece of the puzzle; the long-discredited “Chickenhawk” canard.
That proves it: Pinky Bear is not a real person, but a xerox machine.
#3: “Pinky Bear is not a real person, but a xerox machine.”
You’re right–he’s that HUUUUGE one that Judy Birnley had so much trouble with in 9 to 5.
“I always wonder why the people who say the support the war in Iraq don’t join up themselves?”
Also, just more conclusive proof that while liberals love to flap their gums about military strategy and their delusional opinions about the war in Iraq, they know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject. In their view, only people who support the war and feel like going should have to fight it. Afterall, they applaud every soldier who goes AWOL or refuses to deploy based on their personal opinion that the war is “wrong” as brave and courageous, while they dismiss the efforts of the real heroes serving, calling them violent, homicidal neanderthals and “baby killers.” Yes, Good Riddance, you’re SOOO right. Only people who support the war should have to fight it and those who sign up for military service (and accept the paycheck and benefits) shouldn’t have to go fight if they don’t want to). I can’t think of a better plan to ensure that the U.S. and its borders are safe and protected from harm, responding on a moment’s notice to terrorist threats.
Of course, this is all academic if Obama gets into the White House. Soldiers will never have to decide one way or the other whether they feel like fighting a war because Obama will NEVER support war even under the most catastrophic circumstances resulting in the deaths of millions of Americans. He WILL NOT defend this country. He will ask the U.N. if we can retaliate against a country that is responsible for the attack–the psychopaths on the security council will say no and Obama will just accept it, claiming that he wanted to avenge the deaths of the Americans and eliminate a proven global threat, but he just couldn’t build “multi-lateral support” for doing it. And without the permission of the revered “international community” (many of whom practice Sharia and like to start the day by lopping off an infidel’s head with a machete) we just can’t respond. We just can’t risk the possibility that a country whose citizens burn American flags in the streets and dance like they are at a wedding when 3000 Americans die might not LIKE us if we go to war. The idea that a country that already hates us might actually hate us is totally unnacceptable. So….oh well. Guess there’s nothing we can do.
And the WORST part? The liberals will go into full moral relativist mode to defend Obama’s decision to do nothing, yammering away about the attack being caused by US “arrogance” and “oppressive imperialism,” and my favorite: “two wrongs don’t make a right!” And, of course, their biggest concern will be the fear that the unavenged attack might lead to rampant American “Islamophobia.” Yes, that should be our top priority–making sure that all Muslims feel happy, accepted and comfortable in our country (even the ones who refuse to condemn the attacks).
An Obama Presidency will be a catastrophic disaster. Minutes after his inauguration, the word will be on the street in the Middle East that the U.S. is a sitting duck, unwilling to defend itself. What better timing could there be for a terrorist attack?
It’s nice that you can opine about a war you will never fight yourself.
I think it is terrible how this government puts the lives of young men and women in harm’s way for the profits of the Oil Companies. I think our troops are being used by corporate henchmen for the soul purpose of profits. Haliburton has made a good bit of money off of the war and so have their friends.
You can opine about how you support the soldiers but you don’t know who they really are, do you? They are the poor and disenfranchised. They are the people hoping to get some money for college, to be able to learn a trade, to make some advancement in their lives. This soldiers are braver than you Neo-Crap Chicken Hawks. They are worth more than you. And you support the people who cut their benefits, who send them home maimed and disabled, while Bu$hCo robs them blind.
Please Do Not Feed The Bear.
Pinkybear, are you John Kerry because that is the same shit he spewed out of his grade ‘D’ averaged brain. Our military is more educated than the general population. If they are poor, it is because the shitbags in congress do not pay them enough… all the while profiting tremendously from contracts they grant each others districts. Hello Murtha, hello Feinstein.
#5: “It’s nice that you can opine about a war you will never fight yourself.”
Well, Good Riddance, if that’s the standard, why don’t you shut the fu*k up? Unless, of course, you have a distinguished military career that I’m unaware of.
Say pinko, wanna take a stab at how many of us have served? I mean, you’re so damn smart, surely you can sack up and try your luck?
You’d think Pinky would lose some weight with the rate at which she/he regurgitates ignorant liberal cliches.
Well, how many have you served? I notice no one piped right up. No one said right away, I served in ______________. I have a friend who was in the Air Force during the first Desert Storm and has Gulf War Syndrome. I met a young gay man who was disabled in Iraq this Spring who told me what was happening there. He gets the shaft all the time from the Government that he fought for, to keep safe for Exxon.
I love how when someone has an opinion they are told to STFU. Recurrent theme in the Bu$hCo Administration and the brave new America that you Conservatives want to bring.
Dear Annie, Hello Blackwater! Hello Haliburton! Hello Bu$h!
BTW: Whatever happened to getting Osama bin Laden? Why hasn’t capturing him been the big priority? Why hasn’t he been brought to justice?
The media have been involved in a decades-long push poll on the subject, no suprise that they could tweak their samples enough, and propoganize the public enough to get results that they want.
But this will result in a huge drop in re-enlistment.
This will result in a huge decrease in enlistment.
This will result in liberal lawyers getting rich suing the military for not having affirmative action to promote homosexuals.
This will result in homosexual “quotas”, thru risk management strategy if nothing else.
This would make Stalin smile, for his useful idiots live on and fight on after his death. Countries and people that are more serious about survival and expansion will relish this. This will weaken us, and the muslims and chinese will be the beneficiaries.
How can you say it is worth it? Would you destroy our nation just so that you can feel a tiny bit more normal as you live your abnormal lives?
Change the blog name. You cannot be a Patriot if you would sacrifice national security in exchange for “validation”. If you say this is about anything but that, then you are lying.
Unless the rules have changed and this completely escaped my notice, I do believe the draft was ended in the 1970s and those currently serving freely volunteered to do so as I did in the 1990s.
I can assure you that the stereotyping you are posting here about servicemembers is not only crap but incredibly insulting. But then you are opining about something you have no personal knowledge of, having never worn the uniform yourself. Nope, your ‘extensive’ experience comes via “a friend” or someone you claim to have met. IOW, you shamelessly hijack the experiences of others to make yourself an authority on this subject. Ironic that, considering the charges you are making here against others. Gee, my Dad was a grunt in ‘Nam. Does this make me an expert or authority in jungle warefare? Hardly.
Hate Bush, disagree with the Iraq War, etc. all you like but none of this has squat to do with gays and lesbians being able to serve openly in the military.
Apparently trolls come from both sides. 🙁
#5: “I think it is terrible how this government puts the lives of young men and women in harm’s way for the profits of the Oil Companies. I think our troops are being used by corporate henchmen for the soul purpose of profits.”
What a surprise. Good Riddance responds with his razor-sharp analysis, based solely upon a bumper sticker. Since you don’t have the analytical skills to think critically about the accusation that Iraq is a “War for Oil” longer than it takes to read the bumper sticker upon which it’s printed, let me tell you how f-ing stupid you sound to rational people when you pull that pathetic slogan out.
UN sanctions prohibited Saddam from selling his oil on the open market including the U.S. (of course, he did anyway right under the UN’s nose and kept all of the proceeds for himself to build palaces of gold while his people lived in desperate poverty, but that’s a different discussion). For years, the UN membership gave the US hell for refusing to support an end to the sanctions. We were told that children and families were starving because of the sanctions when it was really Saddam selling his oil for big bucks and keeping the food from the people and letting it rot, just for fun that was causing the misery and death. But naturally, the US was accused of starving Iraq’s children to death, and Saddam was cast as the true victim who just wanted to feed his people (right). Of course, the countries that criticized the US the most on this issue were primarily the ones who practice Sharia, set their wives on fire when they grow tired of them and hang gays in the street in broad daylight with no shame whatsoever. These countries were considered the moral authority on the sanctions issue. Accordingly, if the US had supported it, the sanctions would have been lifted immediately and any country, including the US would have been permitted TO BUY IRAQ’S OIL LEGALLY.
Smarty: I call bullshit.
#5: (cont.) So, when you start shrieking about Iraq being a “war for oil,” what you’re really saying is that instead of supporting an end to the sanctions so that the US could buy Iraq’s oil, instead Bush decided it was a much better plan to do the following:
–plan and execute a conspiracy of such mammoth proportions that it left 3000 Americans dead, brought down the WTC, left the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania smoldering and vaporized 4 commercial jets (if you are a troooofer (and an obscene number of liberals are);
–go to war with Iraq;
–enlist the assistance of 45 other countries;
–depose an EVIL dictator;
–lose the lives of 4000+ US soldiers killing or capturing 1000s of Muslim savages;
–establish a fledgling democracy with free elections;
–spend billions of our own money rebuilding Iraq;
–train a security force to stabilize the country and allow its new democracy to have a chance and then leave;
–AND THEN BUY THEIR OIL FROM THEM.
So instead of buying Iraq’s precious oil, the US decided that it would be fun and economical to fight a war and then buy the oil. Yeah. Good job, Nancy Drew! You really cracked the case! Good Riddance, I certainly don’t expect you to stop saying Iraq is a “war for oil†because you’re impervious to facts and logic. We all know that. I just wanted to make sure you knew that you sound like a petulant, ignorant, obnoxious, obese child every time you say it.
#5: “You can opine about how you support the soldiers but you don’t know who they really are, do you? They are the poor and disenfranchised.â€
Good Riddance, stop trying to sell this bullsh*t because no one is buying it, especially the troops themselves. Since you’re a liberal, the only way you can pretend to care about anyone is to describe them as “poor and disenfranchised†victims who have been tricked into joining the military. I’m sure you cried your eyes out when Michael Moore expressed moral outrage at the very idea of poor, minority kids being “tricked†into enlisting and “sent to Iraq to die.†Of course, it just proved that Moore (and you) are racists because clearly you think young black men are just too stupid to understand what enlisting in the military means. Thank goodness Colin Powell is black. If he hadn’t been black and stupid, he might not have been hoodwinked into joining the military and serving our country so honorably, right Good Riddance?
You always know that the person talking doesn’t know a thing about soldiers when they can only describe them as victims who have been used and taken advantage of. Good Riddance, soldiers are OFFENDED when they are described as weak little pathetic doofuses who thought they were signing up for surfing lessons and woke up in Iraq. I hope some badass soldier hears you describing him and his military brothers and sisters that way and that he promptly kicks your teeth in. They don’t want your inauthentic “support,†they don’t need it and one more thing: if they are SOOOOO victimized, why do they keep re-enlisting? Got an answer for that? Of course not. Good Riddance doesn’t like to acknowledge facts. They ruin everything, don’t they, Good Riddance?
RE #17
Well John, rather than looking at the end of your penis and describing what you see, why not refute my point that what you want would cause severe damage to our national security? Deny that the media has been in a decades long push-poll operation. Deny it , point by point. Tell us about how many gays would sign up because of the ban, and how you think that the loss of straight men would be small in comparison. Tell us how every Jew with a law degree wouldn’t use the defeat of DADT to sue the crap out of the military. Tell us please.
And for you liberal dipshits who go on and on about the war for oil, maybe if you let us drill closer to home it would have changed the math? And if it was a war for oil, where in the hell is it? Where are the truckloads of $0.99/gal gas?
#11: “BTW: Whatever happened to getting Osama bin Laden? Why hasn’t capturing him been the big priority? Why hasn’t he been brought to justice?”
Good Riddance, shut the fu*k up. You’re not fooling anyone. You would much rather be able to continue making phony arguments about your concern that OBL hasn’t been caught than actually see him “brought to justice” for masterminding the murder of 3000 Americans. If OBL was caught tomorrow, the first dim-witted thing out of your mouth would be something related to “questioning the timing.” You would go off on some baseless, speculative plot engineered by Bu$hco to reveal the capture of OBL to affect the election, or some sh*t like that. Then, your next screaming argument would be about ensuring that OBL’s “rights” are protected and that he is given ALL of the constitutional protections that US citizens have. And when OBL eventually lies and tells the MSM that he has been abused by American soldiers while in custody, you would fall for it completely and rail against the military in favor of OBL.
We know the liberal playbook by heart, and you’re too dumb to deviate from it and ad-lib anything. So just cram it. We know you have no interest in seeing OBL brought to justice, and when/if he is caught you’ll go to bat for him just like you liberals do for every other Muslim savage.
Smarty: This issue has been debated throughly on this blog and I’ve responded to your points repeatedly on those threads. Feel free to search for them. I have no wish to repeat myself once again, especially given that you have done nothing but make empty assertions with no evidence or facts to sustain them. As for the media, such wouldn’t surprise me.
You did not refute a damn thing on any other post, you only posted opinion. and the opinion of a gay man that open homosexuality in the military would be fine doesn’t trump the opinion of a straight man who was there.
You support something that has a high risk of destroying the esprit de corps of our military for the benefit of a very, very few people.
What good is it to have forced validation now, if it weakens us forever?
DADT can only be changed by Congress since it is set into law by statute. If the Dems wanted to they could repeal it now and put it on the President’s desk. The problem is that the Dems don’t want to repeal it, they only want it to keep GLBT voters in line with the hope that they will repeal it if there is a Democratic President…and that line of bull will go no where since the Democrats won’t repeal it in Congress but keep using it as a way to keep the GLBT voters on their side….
Let’s not forget that it was a Democratic President that willingly threw us under the bus by signing DADT and DOMA and it will take decades to undo the damage caused by both of those laws.
Good afternoon, Smarty. Let me begin by saying that I am a veteran. I served for just over three years in the United States Army, where I was a sergeant in the field artillery. And, yes, I am gay.
Now, first of all, who needs validation? I prefer to use the real name my parents gave me and not make one up – no offense to anyone else here – but what does it mean when a guy gives himself the nickname “Smarty”? Sounds like he needs a little validation himself. But anyway…
If you would like the opinions of some straight troops and experiences military leaders, why don’t you take a look at this report released two weeks ago:
Report of the General/Flag Officers Study Group
The authors of this report are four retired flag officers:
BG Hugh Aitken, USMC – 34 years of service
LTG Minter Alexander, USAF – 30 years of service
LTG Robert Gard, USA – 31 years of service
RADM Jack Shanahan, USN – 35 years of service
The most recent to retiree was in 1994 and RADM Shanahan is a World War II veteran. With more than 130 years of service between them, are you going to argue with them? Do you think you could trust what these old soldiers have to say?
Finally, I’d like to address your assertion that open and honest gay troops would endanger the ability of America’s military to perform its mission. Why? Why would we want to endanger that? How would it benefit us? Do you honestly think that we would want the Islamofascists to destroy America? Or any other fascist for that matter? It would not only set this country back, but would endanger our lives. Most of the readers on this site are well aware of what happens to gay people in fundamentalist Muslim countries and we don’t want that to come to our shores.
For those of us here who have served in the military, we understand the importance of accomplishing the mission. We also understand that the mission must be accomplished in the most efficient manner, maximizing the potential of all our troops. And some of those troops happen to be gay. Which is more disruptive, a gay troop quietly going about his business, or a soldier who can’t shut his mouth and continually whines about the gay soldier? I’d send the big mouth packing for home. It’s him who has the problem, not the gay guy. Some lessons are hard, but they ought to be learned, sooner rather than later.
#26 – Sorry if this is a double post, because the site had a hiccup.
Pepe, thank you for your service to our country. Also, thanks for defending all of us against Islamofascists – even those unnamed ignoramuses on this board who frankly aren’t worthy enough to spit-shine your boots.
I owe you a beer and a shot if you ever make it to Houston.
Regards,
Peter H.
On the contrary, I provided enough documentation to back up my position. You obviously do not agree, so be it. Btw, you can dismiss folks like “Pinky Bear” for being ignorant of military service all you wish but I’m a veteran myself and there are others here with far longer service than I who are also gay.
The exact same claim, virtually word for word here, was made about blacks serving alongside whites when integration was an issue. Ditto for women. Both have indeed presented difficulties, as this undoubtedly will, but the military is stronger today because of what was done. Oh and btw, all you’ve offered in support of this claim here is your opinion.
Give me evidence that repealing DADT will “weaken us forever” and perhaps we’ll have something to discuss.
#25: The Dems are indeed hypocrites about this and use it for political gain, but I see a bit more action from them today (for the wrong reasons) on repealing DADT than I do from the GOP.
Indeed. I’ll go further than this and borrow a page from Lincoln on slavery (at least in 1862). If kicking out gays & lesbians openly serving would win this war and keep the USA safe, than out they would go. When DADT came out I didn’t like it but agreed with the reasoning at the time. I wrote about this on my blog back in 2005:
Since then, the “unit cohesion” argument has been shown to be fallacious, even by the military’s own behavior. While there would be difficulties in a policy change, I don’t believe they are anything the military can’t handle nor would it effect our war effort. Trust me, the defeatist Dems will have far more impact on both than gay servicemembers in general.
If this happens, there will be a drop in recruitment and retention. How on earth can I prove it? But logic says so, because you guys may have noticed, most straight men really don’t want anything to do with flamboyant gay behavior. Unit cohesion was actually shown to be damaged by the women of Abu Gharib, don’t you think? Sexual tension really kept military order there. And Peter, obviously DADT worked OK in your unit. What if they started catching guys having sex in the field? Or everyone second guessing why so and so got a promotion?
And once you get your way, you may be reasonable, but trust me, the San Francisco branch of Outrageous Fags Unlimited ™ will be going all out. Next, the ACLU will be working overtime trying to tie the military into knots. Deny these two points. I cannot prove them, but based on history, highly likely. Is it worth it? If it is such a smart idea, why are the typical anti-American leftists the ones pushing it? DO you think they suddenly have the best interests of America at heart?
I cannot give proof that it will weaken us forever, but look at it this way: The military is primarily staffed by conservatives. That is a fact. Liberals are far more likely to think it is cool to hang out with homosexuals, another fact.
Doesn’t this logic collide somewhere to say that recruitment will suffer? I can tell you that when I left home at 17, there is no way in hell I would have joined a queer Navy. Sometimes people make village people jokes about the Navy and I can tell you I never met a sailor who thought it was funny. Turn warships into loveboats and no straight kid will join, period. You will have nothing but minorities, single mothers and homosexuals fighting over preferred victim status and affirmative action promotions, and the straight white males will stay home.
First off, Pinky Bear, given that liberal gays and lesbians like yourself endorse and support calling our troops “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” and for liberal politicians and governments to encourage antimilitary hate groups to harass them and vandalize their offices, it should be obvious that liberal gays and lesbians like you flat-out hate and despise the military.
Furthermore, liberal gays and lesbians have made it repeatedly clear, with their attempts to ban veteran’s museums, ban the Blue Angels from flying, and to ban JROTC in public schools, that gay and lesbian people hate the military and demand that it be abolished. In fact, gay and lesbian supported politicians who have the endorsement of gay and lesbian political organizations have called for exactly that
So, to Smarty’s point, why is it that we never see gay veterans’ organizations speaking out against the antimilitary bigotry endemic on the left? My personal theory is because SLDN, to name one, serves as a cat’s-paw for leftist hatemonger groups who simply look at DADT as a propaganda opportunity to turn people against the military. They have become so blinded that they no longer realize how leftists like Pinky Bear, Mark Sanchez, Tom Ammiano, and Gerardo Sandoval are more than happy to use them to denigrate and destroy the organization that these veterans claim to love.
Pinky, I served for almost 4 years with only a one week furlough.
For those who think that if O is president no one will be called to serve in the military – let me remind you that the drafts were put in place by Democrat presidents and discontinued by Republicans.
I will say, I am highly suspicious of this poll.
Oh, and if you ever want to have fun with libtards like, well, they know who they are– and unfortunately this only works in person, because if you ask them over the internet they’ll just google it — but next time a libtard mentions Halliburton — just ask them to tell you what it is Halliburton does. Either they’ll give an amusingly ignorant answer, or realizing you have caught them in their ignorance, will pop some blood vessels and froth at the mouth and go ballistic. Either way, hilarity ensues.
Why do you need to misuse the word “straight” do describe heterosexual behavior?
Oddly enough, we had plenty of this issue to deal with among heterosexual soldiers during both of my deployments to Bosnia. Like the couple that got caught $crewing in the bathroom. And in the strorage trailer. And in the cab of a truck. And in a tent. And yet, the military is no weaker for it.
I call bull$hit on that line of reasoning.
Well if it’s so easy, why hasn’t the Obamessiah captured him? Google Faqir of Ipi
#37
And it’s not just soldiers. How about that lib “journalist” who was screwing around on her husband with two different guys in Baghdad?
Nothin’ says lovin’ like a bun in the oven. Am I to believe straight guys have a super ability to keep their dicks in their pants when away from home? And the notion that all the swabbies are totally straight? C’MON!!! Who are you kidding?
Is “Smarty” serious or playing some lame version of devil’s advocate? I truly want to know.
What kind of “logic” is based on pure speculation that seems more akin to unreasonsed paranoia than anything else? Will some leave? Probably. Such happened when integration went through. Guess what? The overwhelming majority adapted and overcame any difficulties and the military is better because of this. As for “flamboyant gay behavior”, depending upon what you are speaking of this would be covered by the UCMJ and regulations of the various branches. Besides, I’m not overly fond of some of this myself (at least what I understand you to mean) and I doubt I’m the only gay man who would say this.
So we should ban women from the military as well in response? No. What happened at Abu Ghraib was a breakdown of military discipline and a failure of the commanders to maintain proper order and enforce regulations. Blaming women in general for what occurred is absurd.
Than those 2 guys breaking regulations will face the disciplinary action for their lack in judgment. Ditto if evidence shows someone received favoritism in promotion for sexual reasons. Art. 134 of the UCMJ at the very least is quite useful in reminding servicemembers of the responsibilities of their oaths.
Cute. Engage in hyperbole much? Such individuals wouldn’t last very long in the military regardless of their sexual orientation or the status of DADT. They have an inability to conform to military standards which is essential to carry out the mission. If you are offended by such, how much more do you think someone who is gay, like myself, would be? Such persons are not fit to wear the uniform and I wouldn’t want them to, regardless of whom their bed partners are.
The ACLU will undoubtedly try and will meet with the same lack of success they have reaped when it came to DADT and other matters involving military service.
Nope. I think they are looking to carve out another niche for their hodge-podge of grievance groups to gain political power. Yet while their motives may not be pure in this, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I was unaware that political affliations were part of the enlistment oath. Perhaps the oath has changed since I served. I agree with you that most servicemembers have a more conservative outlook overall, I certainly do, but this in itself is not a legitimate defense of DADT. Like it or not, the military serves the People and if the People through their elected representatives decide that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly than the matter is settled.
Well shipmate, the same was said prior to 1948 when it came to blacks but the military seems to have survived intact to this day. Interestingly enough, the most hostile to integration was the Navy. You do remember the race riots of the 60s and 70s aboard ship?
Yeah, okay… Well, feel free to pursue a different career. One that is more to your liking and not ‘infested’ by those pesky queers, minorities and single mothers.
It’s always a good idea to have a healthy skepticism of polls, but while the numbers in this one may seem to be high I have no reason to doubt the general support for repealing DADT.
#39 – The journalistic whore in question was one Lara Logan of CBS News. While married to one guy, she did the nasty with a serviceman in Iraq and is now carrying his love child.
I for one would pay $$$ to see someone Army officer being interviewed by Lara Logan and if she even dared to question his morality or ethics, point back to her enlarging tummy and state: “Pot, meet kettle.”
To quote the late, great Estelle Getty (aka Sophia Petrillo on “The Golden Girls”): “The girl’s a slut.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Many comments ago, Pinky Bear was upset that commenters weren’t stepping forward to identify themselves as having served in the military.
Well, Pinky, I served in the United States Air Force for 26 years, retiring as a bird colonel. The three-star commanding 15th Air Force recommended me for a star but I had to retire in 1989 to take over the family business from my father due to his health. My youngest brother is still in uniform and has earned his second star. One of my sons in a major in the Air Force and is about to end his third stint in Iraq. Unless someone or something screws up his schedule, he’ll be back in the states and on leave three days before he joins his wife and daughters and the rest of us for a trip to the Olympics. (We hope there’s a big USA crowd there to cheer our favorite athlete — Michael Phelps — no relation, by the way, and the other young men and women wearing America’s colors this summer in Bejing.)
Both of my youngest sons, twins who graduated from college this summer, would love to go into the Air Force but they refuse to hide the fact they’re both gay. Thus, two very fine, very intelligent and very capable young men are denied the opportunity to serve their country in uniform. What a shame and what a bunch of crap. (I told Bill Clinton at a fundraiser for Hillary that while I like him personally I’ll never forgive him for letting Sam Nunn and Colin Powell force him to back off his commitment to open the military to openly gay men and women and agree to that stupid DADT.)
(Made a tiny correction to the post below. – PH)
#44 – Trace, kudos to you and to your family. However, one thing you said just got my dander up. How on earth could you like Bill Clinton as a PERSON when it was his personal peccadilloes that sullied the office of the Presidency and made him out to be no better than a lying, cheating, womanizing narcissist?
People can blame GWB for whatever they want in their own mind – wars, famine, global warming etc. – even if we all know that it is not of his own merits. But nobody can say that he hasn’t been a faithful husband, a good father, a humble public servant or honorable politician after the way the Left and the MSM have dragged his name through the mud.
Good example – how many times has Bush been bashed on mag covers or movies? More times than we can count. Yet snObama gets one parodied mag cover, and he acts like a radical Islamofascist who has seen Mohammad’s image sullied by a Westerner and calling for jihad.
If anything it should be Bush who is a great person but a lousy politician. Slick Willie was the other way around.
Just my POV.
Regards,
Peter H.
Dear Trace,
I hope your son comes home safely and soon.
Dear John W.
Well, thank you for your work in the armed forces. I have a few friends that served in the past as well as my father who served in WWII. I am not convinced that O will start a draft as that is mostly Congress who decides that. I am hoping Obama will bring calmness and diplomacy to the table rather then run into another Iraq without planning and then speciously “Mission Accomplished” while bin Laden is still breathing air. Presidents are not autocrats and therefore, answerable to the people. I would certainly do my part to take any president, regardless of party, to task over a draft.
Dear John,
My dad was in WWII. My friend was in the Air Force and has desert storm syndrome. I can’t state it more simpler.
Sean,
I have some Midol for you. STFU? Don’t think so. But thanks for being a darling.
XXOO
#48: Some of you may recall my comment from another thread concerning Good Riddance:
“Your comments have two different styles. The first is prattling-off 3-4 laughable conspiracy theories and baseless allegations against the Bush Administration that you either memorized from the bumper stickers on the back of your car or you read off a Code Pink protest sign. The second is the grotesque, embarrassing way that you try to imitate a sex kitten (although it comes off more “sex hippo†than anything else). This two-note range of yours has long been understood by everyone on this blog as a sad concession of your inability to engage in legitimate, substantive debate on any issue or to defend any of your “beliefs†by resorting to facts and principles.”
Just so everyone is clear, the comment in #48 would be an example of style number 2. The reference to “darling” and the “XXOO” are a dead giveaway. Style number 1 can be recognized from its consistent inclusion of the words “Bu$hco,” “Hitler,” “oil,” “war,” “Haliburton,” “Obama” and “KKK.” All of them. In the same comment.
I will say this: There’s been a lot of “chickafication” of the military. I’m all for women and gays serving as long as they can meet the standards instead of the standards meeting them. DIs and what not need to be more like they were, like R. Lee Ermey in FMJ. Further, they need to stop giving medals for johnny details and giving medals to units for the actions of one person.
Maternity uniform? FTS! If you can’t wear your issued uniform, you need to be on leave of some sort.
Crud. Didn’t close the blockquote properly. Sorry.
More proof that gays are just ordinary people, and we should let them be “open” in the military, and court-martial anyone who objects to their open behavior.
http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/
@54.
Your “proof” is merely a collection of the most disgusting behaviour and public indecency I have seen for a long time. But how dare you claim this being representative of gays? How about I publish a link to every straight “swinger club” and child porn website there is and claim that was your average straight person?
Why don’t you show pictures of me cooking a meal for my boyfriend who will be coming home from a holiday tonight or a picture of him ironing my t shirts. That is typical homosexual behaviour, not your disgusting pictures. They say a lot more about your hate and dirty phantasy than about gay people.