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.

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/

So we should ban women from the military as well in response? No.

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.

Many comments ago, Pinky Bear was upset that commenters weren’t stepping forward to identify themselves as having served in the military.

To be fair to Pinko, he was using the broad ASSumption that none of us have any history in the service since we support the Iraq Campaign. I challenged Pinko to try and ascertain if what he ASSumed was true. Thought he might learn that he’s been lied to, as usual.

On the flip side, if one can’t support the Iraq Campaign without serving in it, I still wonder how one can really oppose it without serving. I also wonder when Pinko is going to go with Reid, Pelosi etc. to Iraq and tell the people there that they can rot in hell for all they care.

“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 have some Midol for you. STFU? Don’t think so. But thanks for being a darling.

XXOO

My dad was in WWII. My friend was in the Air Force and has desert storm syndrome. I can’t state it more simpler.

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.

I hope your son comes home safely and soon.

#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.

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.)

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.

I will say, I am highly suspicious of this poll.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Next, the ACLU will be working overtime trying to tie the military into knots.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Why hasn’t he been brought to justice?

Well if it’s so easy, why hasn’t the Obamessiah captured him? Google Faqir of Ipi

What if they started catching guys having sex in the field?

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.