While lumbering through traffic in West Hollywood and Westwood earlier today, I pondered my (then-)most recent post, wondering if Democrats would suffer any political fallout from their failure to push repeal of the Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy banning gays from serving openly in the military. And I realized that they wouldn’t. They have nothing to gain politically by repealing this silly policy.
Republicans also have little to gain politically by repealing it. Can you imagine gay activists and organizations rushing to support Republicans because they acted in the interest of our nation’s military by overturning a policy which allows for the discharge of competent service members? C’mon, these are people who refused to praise then-Vice President Cheney for providing an example of how all parents should treat their gay children. Only one gay leader (that I am aware of) commended him for including his daughter’s female partner in public events.
Just as many gay organizations won’t support a gay-friendly Republican, almost none of them would abandon a prominent Democrat who doesn’t help them on a key issue, even one who backs a law they strongly oppose. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) refused to rescind its endorsement of Bill Clinton when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996.
They didn’t abandon President Clinton then. And they won’t abandon President Obama now. For the Democrats, there’s no political cost for inaction on DADT.
When gay groups march in lockstep with the Democratic Party, they limit their leverage over its leaders. Democrats know that the gay groups activists aren’t going anywhere. They’re far too politicized. Unlike libertarian-leaning GOP activists, they won’t sit home on Election Day if they feel betrayed by their party.
It’s the gay groups’ slavish advocacy for the DNC which delays a move on DADT. Just as with gay marriage, national Democrats have nothing to gain, but a lot to lose if they move to repeal DADT or recognize same-sex mariage
By avoiding votes on these issues, they don’t risk alienating socially conservative voters who might bolt the party should they move forward on these issues.
But, maybe if more Daniel Chois comes forward to put a human face on the ban, to show us the true cost of the policy, they might be able to contain the damage of a move to repeal. It might convince more people that this is not so much a gay rights’ issue but a national security one.
Just as the loss of a gifted linguist like Choi shows the true cost of DADT, delays in repeal of DADT show the true cost of the gay groups’ blind allegiance to the Democratic Party. No matter how this Democratic Congress acts, its leaders know that they can count on the support of the gay groups.
Maybe if they weren’t so submissive to their Democratic masters, the national gay groups could actually accomplish something for the gay Americans they purport to represent.
I remember all too well in 2004 when Edwards tried to embrass Cheney with his gay daughter. And, then there was the early 1990s when Cheney’s Secretary of Defense did not give a darn when his Press Secretary, Pete Williams was outed.
Democrats don’t suffer any political fallout from their constituencies because the Republicans are always worse on all of their issues. This is one of the basic facts of American politics that conservatives insist on not understanding. The goal of elected Democrats is to get moderates and conservatives to vote for them. Republican insanity all by itself is what keeps liberals voting for Democrats, so they’re not required to do actually do anything for their base. So we end up with a ‘liberal’ party that doesn’t end up doing anything all that liberal.
On the other half of things, the goal of Republicans is to exploit wedge issues and stupidity to trick people into voting for a bunch of lying, corrupt dumbasses that have no place being in charge of anything.
When I was in the Army, there was an openly gay soldier in my unit. The *official* reason back then (a bit more than 30 years ago) to discharge or disqualify gay soldiers was the potential for blackmail, especially if the soldier had a security clearance. This guy didn’t care, and admitted his preference to anyone who cared to ask. This led the security people interviewing him to say, “Oh. OK.” and leave him alone after that.
My only gripe with him was that he didn’t like Star Wars, and I did. He also wasn’t much of a science fiction fan, which also bothered me. He was, however, very competent in his job.
Maybe they should go back to that.
Why vote for the party you’ve been convinced hates you when you can vote for the party that says it loves you and would give you everything you want were it not so politically inconvenient? That should count for something, right?
Um, Levi, you forgot “Rethuglican,” “Republican neo-Fascist/Nazi,” “American Taliban,” and “bitter clingers.”
Does actual thought ever penetrate your limbic system, or is it all just a mindless series of stimulus/response events?
Or -to rephrase- just a mindless series of generic slogans, resulting in (if our host will excuse the barbarity) ipse dixit ad absurdum?
Levi, as always you use any post I write as an occasion to attack Republicans.
Do you understand the point of this post. Here it is again, in different words, that because gay groups bend over backwards to support the Democrats, elected Democrats take gay support for granted, so don’t need support their issues. They’ll have their votes anyway.
Casey, I haven’t quite figured out where you’re coming from, but I’m enjoying your commentary, frequently witty. And when you have criticized me, you have done so fairly–and that is to be commended.
<Democrats don’t suffer any political fallout from their constituencies because the Republicans are always worse on all of their issues.
Because liberals make damn sure, when caught, to avert everybody’s attention elsewhere. When they find themselves up to their asses in hot water, they usually squeal “Well Republicans are worser” like Ned Beatty. Liberals never take responsibility for their own actions and they don’t apologize.
For example: Your beloved Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of crap. That’s indisputable. However, she’ll go on a campaign blaming everybody else in sight.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182533815302417.html
While your panties are crammed so far up your arse that you could floss your teeth or Bush attorneys and “torture”, your beloved messiah and the idiot Eric Holder are actually using the same advice of Yoo and Bybee.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjRhNWQ2YTRlYWI2NzU0Yjc0NmFlN2FjMmI2YzYyODU=&w=MA==
As to the rest of your comment, sorry. I don’t smoke weed. Could you translate that?
or Bush attorneys
Should have been over Bush attorneys.
Levi,
Help me out here. The organ grinder has a cute monkey on a string that runs around with a cup and collects the money. The organ grinder grinds out the same old tune over and over. It is up to the monkey to dance and do flips and con the crowd into paying the tip. When it is over, the organ grinder reels the monkey in, gives him a few peanuts and takes the all the money to buy some Two-Buck Chuck and a baloney sandwich.
As a democrat monkey, what do you get out of it over and above a few peanuts. Do you really like being tied on a string? Is it all some sort of security that helps you cope with your inferiority fears? By the way, you look cute in that little pill box hat. I love it when you tip it and grin at the crowd. You are so well trained.
Do you understand the point of this post. Here it is again, in different words, that because gay groups bend over backwards to support the Democrats, elected Democrats take gay support for granted, so don’t need support their issues. They’ll have their votes anyway.
I understand your point, I am telling you that it is almost entirely wrong. Gay groups, just like environmentalists, war opponents, supporters of universal health care, etc., only vote for Democrats because they have no alternative. Republicans are worse on all those issues and more. Revulsion to Republican policies is what allows the elected Democratic leaders to take their core constituencies for granted. Republican extremism pushes liberals to the Democrats so the Democrats focus on appealing to moderates and conservatives. Do you understand that point?
Because liberals make damn sure, when caught, to avert everybody’s attention elsewhere. When they find themselves up to their asses in hot water, they usually squeal “Well Republicans are worser” like Ned Beatty. Liberals never take responsibility for their own actions and they don’t apologize.
That’s pretty hilarious coming from a Republican. George Bush kept us safe, right buddy? The war in Iraq was the right thing to do, wasn’t it?
For example: Your beloved Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of crap. That’s indisputable. However, she’ll go on a campaign blaming everybody else in sight.
I’ve never had a kind word to say about Nancy Pelosi. If there was one thing I wish would happen in 2010, it would be her losing her seat. She’s obviously been making political calculations on the torture issue for seven years now, staying quiet when it was still a secret and blatantly moving with the tide when things started getting disclosed.
While your panties are crammed so far up your arse that you could floss your teeth or Bush attorneys and “torture”, your beloved messiah and the idiot Eric Holder are actually using the same advice of Yoo and Bybee.
I won’t excuse this. Obama’s been continuing a lot of Bush’s policies and power-grabbing legal arguments. And Republicans should be eternally grateful for it. If we had a real liberal in the White House, he or she would have started ripping the lid off all the administration’s bullsh*t in the first couple of days.
I get your point Levi. As a fiscal conservative I no longer have a major party to vote for. The Bush/Republican shift to being the party of massive government has freed the Dems to become the party of limitless government – driving them ever farther from being a party anyone who cares about freedom would vote for.
Much of this seems peripheral to me.
As patriotic Americans, our primary focus, should be: what is best for our armed forces? And what will help fighting cohesion?
GPW: You’re making a case that is sadly a rare one – that allowing openly gay servicemen in the military will make ours a more effective fighting force. I think that the Choi case certainly supports this on several levels. These arguments are much more persuasive than calls for fairness, symbolism and other such rot.
Yet, the Joint Chiefs are against it. It would be fair to say that they are implacably against it. I would hope, again as patriotic Americans, that we would give their concerns proper deference.
Now, I’m no expert on this. My extended family is currently in all four branches of service and it personally saddens me that I couldn’t join them. But, as much proud as I might be to join in, if the Joint Chiefs are wary, then regretfully, I must be also.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Another issue that Republicans have little to gain from is immigration reform, a.k.a. amnesty. President Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986. Of those who became citizens very few registered Republican as an act of conscience and gratitude. Considering there are anywhere from 12 to 20 million undocumented persons in the U.S. and using a conservative five percent of them being gay or lesbian that means it will
add 600,000 to a million, many of them of military age, new Democrats in predominently urban areas.
I get your point Levi. As a fiscal conservative I no longer have a major party to vote for. The Bush/Republican shift to being the party of massive government has freed the Dems to become the party of limitless government – driving them ever farther from being a party anyone who cares about freedom would vote for.
Oh please. The Bush administration has committed us to open-ended wars, instituted secret torture programs, and actively spied on Americans with no oversight for years and years. Obama has increased spending, and that’s supposed to be more of a restriction on your freedom than the things undertaken by Bush? Yeah right.
It’s funny, this whole discussion reminds me of a story I just read. Apparently, in the fall of 2003, mass-hysteria swept the Sudanese capital of Khartoum after reports that American and other western businessmen were shaking hands with Sudanese men and causing their penises to disappear. This is a true story.
The merchants became hysterical and began flooding the local hospitals. Soon the penis vanishing spread beyond hand-shaking. One suffering merchant bought a soda from another merchant who in turn lost his own penis. Another bought a comb from an "infected" man and within seconds had his penis shrivel.
Eventually, tales of vanishing penises reached Sudan’s Attorney General, who declared that all complaints would be brought before a special investigative committee, even though doctors had already determined that the victims were in fact "perfectly healthy." The Sudanese health minister described the epidemic as "scientifically groundless," and that it was "an emotional problem."
Think about trying to talk one of these folks off the ledge. It’s really the perfect tale of victimhood: Americans stole my penis! It doesn’t matter that all they did was shake hands. It doesn’t even matter that their penises are right where they’re supposed to be. They were just indignant. Whether there is a rational basic for their sense of indignation or impotence is irrelevant.
Indignant. Irrational. Anti-American. Emasculated. Now who does this remind you of?
Best wishes,
-MFS
And again, Levi screams about Bush, but excuses Obama and Pelosi for doing the exact things he accused Bush of doing.
Dance, monkey, dance. Keep showing the American public that the Obama Party does nothing but lie to them in a sociopathic attempt to get political power.
CNN did a report on Obama’s backing off on gay issues. It wasn’t horrible; it was as nonpartisan as CNN could get. They did make excuses for him for backing off on gay issues, such as the American independent is still not sold on the whole gay marriage thing. The report focused almost entirely on gay marriage, and not enough on DADT. There is nothing that is keeping Obama as commander in chief from repealing DADT and allowing openly gay people to serve. But from inside the military, things are a bit complicated. I know many people who have or are currenlty serving in the military. Their experiences being gay in the military have been as diverse as as many people. One man I know who wasn’t gay tried to get out by saying he was, but his commanders didn’t care if he was gay or not. Another told his recruiter he was gay, but his recruiter ended up asking him for a date. Another claims most his platoon is gay, or at least horny and bisexual. Another one was kicked out for disclosing his homosexuality, but was called back in a few months later.
I think this post touches on something that has my husband and I very frustrated and it’s rooted in a great deal of truth. The Dems do take gays for granted and, as a consequence, there is little accountability on those issues (at least when it comes to votes; I think it makes a difference on fund-raising but that’s a guess). The flip-side of that, though, is something Levi was trying to address… comparatively, the republican *party* is worse than the democrats. I know plenty of individual republicans who are great on equality and fair treatment, don’t care one bit what my husband do in the bedroom and see us as just another couple albeit one with “strange” Democratic tendencies. 🙂 But, as a party, the rhetoric is worse.
That doesn’t excuse the complete lack of accountability for the Dems and I think Dan is absolutely right on this… there is no accountability. But I really don’t think the Republicans have made much of an effort to court the gay vote either, and folks like Rush, Steele and Gingrich who are pushing for ideological purity (which includes no marriage and, per Steele, no civil unions)… the lack of accountability is also a result of a lack of alternatives. If the results are the same but the rhetoric is better on one side than the other, most voters are going to go with what at least makes them feel good at the polls even if they feel like crap the other three years.
P.S., That said, while not surprised I am incredibly disappointed to see Obama backing off on DADT. He has always been luke-warm on equal rights and probably sees it as more of a dignitarian bit of nonsense than a substantive set of issues. More generously, one could say he’s got more important stuff to deal with between the economy and terrorism and he’s trying to learn a lesson from Clinton’s fuck-ups by not handling this too soon in his administration but… I’m not feeling that generous. It is disappointing, and the gay rights groups should be holding him accountable for it.
The liberals and leftists are very funny. Obama still hasn’t closed Gitmo. We are still in Iraq. He is increasing our troop levels in Afganistan, though not to a point to do any good. And he still hasn’t captured Osama Bin Laden (no I didn’t forget about that promise). And he has weakened our defenses enough, that if we are attacked again, he gets all the blame. Under Obamateleprompter, the west may be losing PAK EEE STUN Imagine you are a working member of the CIA . Are you really giving your all, under this embarassingly enept administration?
Speaker Pelosi won’t even admit she was given briefings on enhanced interrogation.
This is likely way off both the gay and military reservations, but here goes.
Aside from other more important considerations, there very well could be a certain satisfaction for some in the clandestine nature of the current status of homosexual soldiers. Among males, those volunteering are willingly entering an outwardly masculine culture — the perfect orthodox veil for sexual heterodoxy and an external affirmation of the homosexual male’s doubted masculinity. In a limited way, perhaps DADT perfectly symbolizes and reflects a furtive subculture rather than creates it; perhaps the policy’s intent is not to address theories of fairness and equality — luxuries meant for armchairs, not bunkers — but more practical considerations in a sexually-charged atmosphere that only the most naive would deny exists. The attraction of masculinity is strong and an entire segment of gay pornography is devoted to the seduction of “straight” males. For some who volunteer, openness isn’t the point and while that might not be reason enough upon which to base a policy (I don’t believe it is by itself), it is perhaps a factor that for obvious reasons isn’t discussed.
Yes and yes. Why is that so hard to figure out?
At least he didn’t cut off the CIA’s balls and hand it to them like your beloved messiah.
You’re using old lying points. Besides, even if it were true, I’d take that over some SOB president who’ll release terrorists onto US soil (with welfare) just so all the Euro-trash will love him.
The Dems whisper sweet nothings to all their
clientsbase: “free” healthcare, jobs, education, cilvil liberties, environment, race issues, gay rights – you name it.But no one looks at the actual results (ineffectual and expensive at best, more often – awful).
Levi, gillie, &c reject the war in Afghanistan (escalated by Obama which is OK with me if that will get the job done) and Iraq even though these were wars of liberation, not conquest. Yet the left never fail to sport their “Free Tibet” or “Free Darfur” stickers and buttons. If Bush were to have invaded Tibet (not likely since the Chinese would respond) or Darfur, the left would have considered it more evidence that Bush was a warmonger.
The GOP is powerless to stop all these worthy reforms – yet the left do little more than carp about Miss California and Rush Limbaugh.
I might add that the Democrat base appears to not see what the Dems actually DO (one thing while saying another).
What’s the alternative?
#23: TGC, how scary is it that our national security is now in the hands of knobs like Levi who arrogantly use expressions like “open-ended wars” in their anti-Bush sermons without a moment’s thought of how ignorant and stupid it reveals them to be? Seriously, these are people who think that there are “closed-ended wars”, and actually think of themselves as “the good guys” when they threaten to cut off funding to US soldiers on the battlefield in order to ensure that a war is “closed-ended.” Yes, they all despise Bush for taking us to war, but what really made him a monster in their view is the fact that it was “open-ended.” If there’s anything a liberal can’t stand, it’s a war in which we (1) don’t ask the UN for permission to act and (2) don’t inform our enemies in advance of a date certain that we plan to leave. These people stood in front of TV cameras and self-righteously declared that they wouldn’t support funding bills unless they contained a “timeline for withdrawal!” Translation: I’m not voting to send those soldiers one more dime until our enemies are told exactly when we plan to get out of their hair and leave them alone! And in their narcissistic world this makes them courageous heroes. It’s positively sickening.
Of course, these people are also big fans of the “casualty-free” war, which we found out from politicians like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry who voted for the War in Iraq but understandably went ballistic when they found out that people were actually getting killed (obviously, they were taken in by Bush’s lies–they very clearly indicated that they were voting for the “casualty-free” war, thank you).
These are the people in charge of national security. If we get attacked and have to go to war under these people, I have no doubt we’ll lose, but I’m sure the scheduling will be impeccable.
These are the people in charge of national security. If we get attacked and have to go to war under these people, I have no doubt we’ll lose, but I’m sure the scheduling will be impeccable.
Silly me. I would think that if you were going to start a war, you would try to win it. You would have a goal that you could be certain that you could accomplish and you would have plan that would allow you to accomplish that goal as quickly and efficiently as possible. I know I’m just some dumb sissy and you, as a Republican, are an automatic national security expert, but it just seems to me that a smart President wouldn’t want to start a war under false pretenses with a continually evolving set of objectives that drags on for years and years while getting more and more expensive and deadly.
Here’s some more news from reality, Unassailable National Security Expert Sean A. While we’ve been getting blown up and burning through trillions of dollars in Iraq for absolutely no strategic benefit whatsoever, the Taliban has made a comeback. You remember them, right? They’re the guys that actually had ties to Al-Qaeda. They’re so strong at this point that Pakistan might collapse, which is a nuclear power.
This is what ‘freedom in the Middle East’ looks like, I guess. Osama is still out there, the Taliban is resurgent, and a country with nuclear weapons is speeding towards total disarray. But hey, at least we’re wandering around in Iraq for nothing. Yup, that’s some excellent foreign policy right there. Something for the Republican Experts on National Security to be proud of. If only we could have some more of that sweet George Bush cowboy diplomacy…
but it just seems to me that a smart President wouldn’t want to start a war under false pretenses with a continually evolving set of objectives that drags on for years and years while getting more and more expensive and deadly.
You mean like Wilson, FDR, or JFK???
Source please.
I thought they were just “freedom fighters”. What’s more, your beloved messiah spake and now everybody’s going to get rid of their nuclear weapons.
But hey, don’t worry your leaky twat about it. Our allies are pouring troops, at Il Douche’s request, into the region as we speak. They’ll take care of it.
You mean like Wilson, FDR, or JFK???
Heh, you wish.
I thought they were just “freedom fighters”. What’s more, your beloved messiah spake and now everybody’s going to get rid of their nuclear weapons.
But hey, don’t worry your leaky twat about it. Our allies are pouring troops, at Il Douche’s request, into the region as we speak. They’ll take care of it.
Yeah, that’s what I thought. The failure of George Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East is manifesting itself, and all you can do is sound like a retard. Now quick! Stomp your feet and start insisting that we won the war in Iraq!
GPWest, thanks for the kudos. I honestly don’t recall when I’ve directly criticized you, but hey… 🙂 I do try to fight the good fight.
Where I’m coming from? An Independent who favors Liberty, Federalism, and focusing power to the most local node possible. I think that the citizens of Podunk, Iowa have a better idea of what they need than do the fudge-nuggets in DC. I also think that the federal government should vacate any and all nodes of power where state or local authorities more properly represent their citizens.
Alas, Levi drives ever onward in his obscure quest to repeat the unarguable dominance of Marxist thought while whinging that “environmentalists, war opponents, supporters of universal health care” can only vote for Democrats because the evil Rethuglicans ignore them. The deluded fool seems unable to realize that -perhaps- “war opponents” are not necessarily correct, that “universal health care” is a socialist albatross touted by those ignoring the real-world results in Canada and Europe, and that the Democratic Party definition of “environmentalists” is equivalent to “inner-city idiots who lack even the most elemental comprehension of the requirements of an industrialized society.”
In other words, Levi assumes a priori that his postulates are incontrovertibly true, and ignores any evidence or data to the contrary.
I’ll note here that he has been very careful to ignore my previous comments. First principle of debate: never call by name a powerful opponent.
After that, we have Levi providing comic relief, with his #11 Q&A. Yes, Dubya kept us safe. How many attacks on the homeland since then, chuckles? Aside from … ZERO?
Levi pathetically tries a passive/aggressive slant on the Iraq invasion, while avoiding any positive statement on his part. Maybe the invasion was a good idea; maybe it wasn’t . It will most likely take at least 15-20 years of serious historical analysis to develop a preliminary answer, but by that time, Mr. “pose a sarcastic rhetorical question while not providing an intellectually responsible alternative” will have managed to avoid any real responses. How convenient.
MFS: please do not put the Joint Chiefs on the spot on this. From every source I’ve read/heard from, this is directly and specifically a question for Congress. Period. End of friggin’ discussion.
I’ll also observe that I’ve heard from quite a few serving folks who are adamant that sexual orientation is now irrelevant to military service. Certainly the ability to blackmail secretly-gay military members has been severely weakened.
On the other hand, I’ve also heard from quite a few serving folks volubly against openly-gay service.
Given that 18-to-25-year-olds are a bunch of randy buggers no matter what, it’s a tough nut to crack. And don’t even think of “going there” about the above comment. 😉
But let’s got back to GPWest’s original point: I’ve noticed that at least since Kerry’s campaign in 2004, the national level of the Democratic Party has been to verbally support modern gay rights, while doing not one damn thing to advance them. Case in point, in 2004 Ohio presented an amendment wherein “This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.” I said NO.
Please note that Bush took barely Ohio by about 54/45, or some such. Also note that the above amendment passed by a 70/30 margin, so quite a few “liberal” voters went for Kerry, but not for respecting civil unions. This result was reproduced several times across several states for that election. A very large proportion of “liberal/Democrat” voters voted for Kerry, but against gay marriage/union rights.
Response from the most-well-known gay rights community? “Zzzzzzz.”
Bottom line: the national leaders of the Democratic Party lack the cojones to push for something their party allegedly desires; full equal, and complete participation of gay American citizens in all elements of society. Kerry wimped out in 2004, as did Barry “marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman” Obama did in 2008. I’ve come to the conclusion that Howard Dean is (politically speaking) a little turd, but at least he’s demonstrated the intellectual integrity of consistently supporting gay rights. One should respect any politician who consistently espouses a particular position despite popular passion. Please excuse the alliteration. 🙂
Oh, I’m sorry. Levi has returned. And in order to divert attention away from his previously pathetically weak position, he has engaged in the time-honored tactic of changing the subject.
So, instead of discussion why the Democratic Party has so completely and obviously ignored their gay rights platform, Levi wants to know what people think about the Taliban who are about to get NUKES FROM PAKISTAN!!! IT’S THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!
First, you simple-minded jackass, we have been winning the war in Iraq, which is why dilwits like you have been obsessing over Afghanistan the last year. Second, “quickly and efficiently as possible” is very relative. Do you consider the 400,000 lives lost in WW2 an “efficient” solution? Can you provide an objectively superior one? This is just opportunistic exploitation of the “third-year” rule of American politics. Basically, after three years of war, American citizens tend to become quite impatient. One may follow the instantiation of this principle in every war in which the country has engaged.
After that, Levi engages in some juvenile passive/aggressive sarcasm which should instruct all objective observers on both his skills both rhetorical and logical.
Osama bin Ladin has been a zero for years, the Taliban has not made a “comeback,” unless you want to count evolution from a “revolutionary” terrorist group to enforcers for organized crime (a common direction, according to history), and the “threat” to Pakistan is more correctly described as a conflict between the Pushtun tribes in the northwest with the rest of the country. The majority of Baluchi have no truck with the Taliban, as they are seen as foreign ideology.
Levi also demonstrates his absolute ignorance of nuclear weapons, which require an amazing number of steps to detonate. He apparently thinks all you need is a rilly kewl aluminum suitcase equipped with Big Red LEDs to detonate a modern nuclear device.
So Levi, in his bizarre obsessive insistence to ignore any and every point presented against him, segues into a claimed international catastrophe wherein “Osama is still out there” (yet irrelevant), the “Taliban is resurgent” (but only if you’re a drug dealer or a Pushtun warlord), and the Paki nukes are at risk.
No one’s explained yet just how the Taliban will manage to a) get a Paki nuke, b) overcome any physical locks/security measures, c) get the actual pass-codes which allow someone to actually detonate the device. Maybe the Taliban have access to a high-level Pakistani military leader who is simultaneously dumb enough to help the Taliban, while believing that the rest of the world won’t figure out where the nuke came from. That’s one the many areas where Levi drops the ball.
It is not that difficult to determine the origin of a nuclear device. That is, the engineers can state with a high degree of accuracy whether the detonated device was British, American, Russian, French (or other) in origin.
So Levi must argue that his theoretical Pakistani traitor must be simultaneously smart enough to have access to all the high-level stuff of the Paki program, yet dumb enough to believe that no one will figure out where the bomb came from, much less the most likely reaction of the rest of the world given a nuclear detonation.
I feel compelled to point out that this is the same kind of hysterical, non-rational thinking which (for several decades) claimed that some “non-state actor” could build a nuke a la John Lithgow’s 1989 The Manhattan Project. Please let me point out that, despite all 1970s and 1980s hysteria, no “rogue group” has ever managed to develop a nuclear device.
Let me also point out that no such group has managed to steal such a device (The Peacemaker 1997) either. This would include the “disaster” scenarios in Broken Arrow (1996), and True Lies (1994)
…But I digress. I confess I have fallen for Levi’s red herring with respect to the whole “rogue nuke” scenario, which diverts attention from the original thread discussion the complete and absolute spinelessness of the Democratic Party with respect to gay rights in America. Not to mention how the vast majority of gay rights groups still devote themselves to the Democratic Party cause, without the slightest bit of empirical evidence to support that … support.
All Levi has done is ruminate how terrible the Rethuglicans are (classic ad hominem attack, BTW), without addressing in any way just how the Democrats have advanced gay rights. Aside from, like, mentioning them in speeches at strategic intervals.
Going back to an earlier point, Dick Cheney has done more for gay rights by publicly accepting his daughter, and including her partner in his family’s life than any dozen “liberal” activists.
Those goobers are so pwned by the Democratic Party, it’s, well… funny.
Alas, Levi drives ever onward in his obscure quest to repeat the unarguable dominance of Marxist thought while whinging that “environmentalists, war opponents, supporters of universal health care” can only vote for Democrats because the evil Rethuglicans ignore them.
Well, I’m glad you started getting things wrong right off the bat. Now I don’t have to read the rest of that far too long post. I didn’t say that Republicans ignore those groups, I said they’re the far worse party if you care about those issues. I’ll just assume that since you’re using an inaccurate restatement of my argument as the premise, the rest of it must be just as wrong.
I’ll note here that he has been very careful to ignore my previous comments. First principle of debate: never call by name a powerful opponent.
Oooooh man, are you kidding? Do you really think I’m afraid of you? I never noticed you up until now. You’re doing as pathetically as the rest of these yokels.
Here’s my first principle of debating Republicans: If someone is dropping italicized Latin in the first couple of paragraphs of a cartoon-ishly over long post, they compensating for a complete lack of intelligence and arguing ability.
I’m going to save this disaster to my hard drive.
Nope. We know you’re full of shit.
We keep hearing proclamations from the “objective” MSM about how everybody in Europe loved the messiah during the G20. We were told how victorious he was. Then we find out from the European media that they told Il Douche to take a hike. So that’s due to Bush’s ME policy????
Will the messiah ever accept responsibility, or will it always be Bush’s fault? I mean, it will be Bush’s fault if Il Douche can’t find anybody to throw under the bus.
Don’t answer, Levi. You’re bullshit pile is deep enough as it is.
That’s a laugh since you haven’t displayed that you have principles or debating skills.
And again, without facts or history on his side, Levi resorts to attack and strawmen. His knowlege of history (or should we say lack of knowlege?) starts at 2002, when he was a bitter angry 19 year old, Now he’s a bitter angry 26 year old, still immune to facts. Levi is immune to facts, a fan of Judicial tyrany as long as it benefits himself of course, and as petty as he can be. Likely the best example would be Levi’s conspiracy theories about BushChenyHaliburton, which are as debunked as myhts and lies and yet he’s simply disappointed or silent when President Obama does the right thing. Or how he alienates allies and Levi’s again silent.
He’s not as pathetic as bob, but runs a close second.
Moving on to interesting and relavent posters… Casey, I’m curious as to why you voted ‘no’ on the Ohio DOMA. I ask because I voted ‘yes’ I found the arguements made by the No side flawed. (The language was the exact same as the DOMAct on the books, but none of the doom and gloom scenarios had come to pass). And I found the limitation of Judicial malevolence worth the hampering of the legislature to create ‘fred’.
Also the relative ease to remove the ammendment was a factor. I’d be happy to sign a petition for removal of the ammendment, since a) the decision would be made by the people and b) the passage of a repeal would indicate that a reasoned approach could be achieved.
And what is Gaypatriots response? Cheerleading Senator Burr and every other Republican that opposes repeal. If you provided a reasonable alternative to the Democrats, you might be on to something.
I will agree that the HRC are idiots. But not because they support candidates that are better than others (albeit not 100% on every issue). Because they are too willing to ‘sign off’ on DADT delays (like the Treasurer of HRC who publically did in January). If our own supposed Gay “leaders” like GOProud and HRC aren’t willing to push HARD (and that means criticizing everyone that isn’t moving this) then why should we expect others to?
The late Senator Barry Goldwater, who was a Major General amd a pilot in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, in his testimony before the Arm Services Committee said, ¨you don´t have to be straight to shoot straight.¨ He could be the straw man on ending DADT and gays in the military. It is done as a tribute to a known conservative with military experience who had no problem with gays serving in serving their country in the military.
I disagree. Boob’s at least amusing. Sorta like watching the little barking dog toy that does flips. Whereas Levi’s about as amusing as a pile of dung can be.
Who? Who are we “cheerleading”?
So you’ve created an out for Il Douche. If he does nothing (goes back on his word, ie. lies), he can say that it’s all our fault because we didn’t want it bad enough?
Brilliant.
So you’ve created an out for Il Douche. If he does nothing (goes back on his word, ie. lies), he can say that it’s all our fault because we didn’t want it bad enough?
Actually, that’s not how I read Tom’s comment. One of the criticisms against the gay left is that we fail to criticize Democrats when they don’t follow through on gay rights. And I agree with them. It seems like it would behoove those on the gay right who support DADT, including GOProud to also Republicans as well as Democrats for the failure to end DADT.
I’ll let Tom speak for himself, but Obama does NOT get a pass from me for failing to not at least propose to Congress to end DADT.
I’m not a DADT fan by any means, and for about a hundred different reasons. However, when the same groups who despise the military demand that DADT be dismantled, then one has to wonder why they care. And that leads us back in history to the Pat Schroeder military re-engineering, which was presented as nothing more than expanding the role of women. People who said it was nothing more than an attempt to push a social agenda on the military were poo-pooed, as anyone who argues the slippery slope always is by liberals, yet they were absolutely correct. Now the military is feminized by “sensitivity” training, and “sexual harassment,” and other such crap, which wouldn’t be necessary if they weren’t admitting whiny, weak, self-obsessed crybabies in the first place.
Repeal DADT and what are the assurance we won’t have “homophobia” seminars?
Sorry, the left has done enough to castrate the military (and society at large). I’m not going to jump aboard the movement to further gut the military, no matter how much I may disapprove of DADT.
#28 Levi makes the following judgment:
Here is the conundrum: Should Bush have stuck to the Clinton policy of cruise missile strikes on the Bin Laden camp in Afghanistan? What would the Clinton Policy be after 9/11 had it occurred on his watch. (He had experience with the first Twin Towers attack, the Cole, the barracks, the embassies, etc. What would Clinton and Richard Clarke and Albright and Cohen done in the wake of 9/11?)
When Monday morning quarterbacking a war, it is important for a few brave generals and politicians to step forward and lay out their winning strategy. None have done so. They just say, a la John Kerry, they would be smarter.
There was a push among liberals in the US to get Mussarif to step down. Now he is offering to return and secure Pakistan. What about that, Levi? He is a known iron man who can keep the lid on a volatile country.
You have been asked many times to explain why you would prefer Saddam to still be in control of Iraq, laughing at the U.N., funding suicide bomber families, running terrorist training facilities, and giving safe haven to terrorists.
Just as the leftists made waterboarding into torture, so has the left continued the fantasy that all their best and brightest university, media and political experts were lied to and conned by Bush. You even claim he tied Iraq to 9/11 without a single shred of evidence to back your claim.
Your Monday morning quarterbacking turns out to be a sour grapes grumble-fest with not a single intellectually stimulating point. Your best bet is to declare the United States a nuclear free zone and retreat into isolation from the rest of the world. We can all weave hammocks and sell them to each other.
If gay people truly cared about their liberty, they would vote Libertarian more often. But for some reason, most of them, ast least from my observations, have been duped hook, line and sinker for the Left Wing “cause” regardless of whether it’s in the best interest of gays. It doesn’t matter what the topic, if the left is for it, the majority of gays in the US follow like good little soldiers right behind, and vice versa if they left opposes something. This also explains the virulent anti-Americanism that plagues inner city gay communities across the US. It’s repugnant, really. These people actually are personally offended if you criticize Iran! But if you say Americans eat babies, they actually think there might be some truth to it! It’s amazing the average American is as tolerant as they are considering! Like many good individual rights causes, the left wing have sunk their teeth into it and drained if of its original purpose. The “gay cause” is now just another term for Marxist revolution.