Gay Patriot Header Image

DADT Repeal May Usher In A Colorblind Society

One of the best arguments I’ve heard against the repeal of DADT (which, as we say in the business is now OBE) is that it will lead to a new level of mamby-pambyness vis-a-vis gay troops demanding they be treated “fairly”. Often as we’ve noticed, when any “rights” group is looking for “fairness” it’s often simply code for “special rights”.

For the majority (based on my experience) of gay troops, our lives will likely not change much on a day-to-day basis. I, for one, am not planning to “come out” to anybody save a few close friends where I work. I’m expecting, in fact, that they likely know about me anyway. (After all, such a devilishly handsome man with so much going for him my age not married? He must be gay! Har har, but anyway…) Inasmuch, I don’t expect most gay troops will be demanding anything much more than simply not getting kicked out if we forget to use the gender-neutral pronouns when speaking of our dates.

This is not to say there won’t be a few (which will likely seem like much more than a few) flamboyantly unprofessional troops whose conduct will surely be seen as unbecoming and hopefully will be counseled right away. That will be a touchy subject I’ll save for another post.

For now let’s talk about “special rights”.

Many have argued this is a stepping-stone to a larger “gay rights” agenda. I’ve never seen it as such, and I regret that there will definitely be many gay “rights” champions who will misuse this to further their own agenda (much as those opposed to gay “rights” will also use it to further their agenda). They have no concern necessarily about the defense of the Nation nor about the military. We are a tool for them to use and they should be ashamed, if they knew any such thing as shame in the first place.

There’s another thing that I think might come of this which would be a good sign. Check out this quote from the DoD’s report on the repeal of DADT:

We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program. We believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their sexual orientation, we believe they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else.

(emphasis added)

This is a sentiment I (as most libertarian conservatives) have long espoused: Equal treatment, not special treatment. Which leads to the next logical question: Why should “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” be the basis for special treatment either? If gays and lesbians “will be accepted more readily” if not treated differently, wouldn’t that also be the same for members of these other groups? What an interesting outcome of this whole episode if the entire concept of “special” categories of troops went by the way-side?

For all the talk (and legitimate, I might add) of “unintended consequences” surrounding the repeal of DADT, what a happy accident it would be if, by virtue of this new policy change, we had to rethink how we treated everybody. Because if there’s no good reason to treat gays and lesbians as “diversity programs” (and there isn’t), then why do we need them in the first place? This could be a whole new chapter in respecting each other as individuals and as part of a larger team rather than the social balkanization the Left so often loves to use to drive us apart.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

Share

91 Comments

  1. “DADT Repeal May Usher In A Colorblind Society”

    ————–

    Or it might go completely the other way, with each new case for recognition being built on every previous “victory”.

    This feels like an arranged marriage in the way it was done. Instead of letting people get to know each other first, and possibly building trust on their own, the situation feels forced. It didn’t help a bit when the military brass stood up and said; “….and if you don’t like it, then quit!”

    When a relationship is forced, the partners sometimes become hostile toward one another. Each side tries to dominate and suppress the other. I believe that gaining appreciation and respect for your partner can most easily be achieved through a mutually-consensual relationship.

    Is that the approach we’ve taken here?
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 12:52 pm - December 19, 2010

  2. I couldn’t agree more. My concern is not that straight service members will react badly or that gay men and women who want to serve will try to take advantage. I am a little concerned that someone looking for some media attention will join and when they are treated like everyone else in basic training (like crap) they will start screaming they were singled out and start screaming bigotry etc. Hopefully the media and people in general will see that immediately what that is and condemn such antics. Same goes for anyone who is really singling out gay service members.

    Comment by Nathan — December 19, 2010 @ 12:54 pm - December 19, 2010

  3. I couldn’t agree more with ColoradoPatriot. I think gastorgrab has a point but I was writing my post before I saw GG post.

    Comment by Nathan — December 19, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - December 19, 2010

  4. Here’s what I don’t understand. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy didn’t create any new right for gay soldiers to serve. It simply allowed gay soldiers to serve *quietly*, and created certain prohibitions against the investigation into their sexual orientation. As I understand it, homosexual conduct, including speech identifying oneself as homosexual, as well as physical conduct, is still grounds for dismissal and prosecution under the UCMJ, which is why so many soldiers have been dismissed under the DADT policy.

    Doesn’t a simple repeal of DADT return the status to the pre-Clinton era, thus allowing the exact sort of investigations and questioning into sexual orientation of soldiers that DADT was supposed to protect soldiers against?

    Isn’t this a big step backwards? I’ve read dozens of articles that all proceed under the assumption that a repeal of DADT allows gays to openly serve in the military. But that was not allowed at all prior to DADT, so how does repealing DADT allow gays to openly serve in the military when the UCMJ prohibitions against homosexual conduct (conduct including speech) remain?

    Did Obama just throw gay soldiers under the bus?

    Comment by jms — December 19, 2010 @ 1:16 pm - December 19, 2010

  5. Repealing DADT may create a colorblind society? Oh, brother! If intergrating the military back in the day didn’t lead to a colorblind society how will pandering to a miniscule sex group do that?

    Nick, you’re obviously getting desperate in your effort to convince people that repeal isn’t about what it is about, i.e. social engineering designed to further the normalization of homosexulity. Apparently your repeal-is-all-about-national-security story wasn’t working so you’ve resorted to playing the race card. Monumentally lame.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 1:22 pm - December 19, 2010

  6. Wow, Seane-Anna: Is not reading the actual words I write pathological for you?

    Try it again.

    If what you mean to say is that my hope that this could play a role in ending the balkanization of Americans is too ideological, then say so.

    But please again, don’t try to get me to defend other peoples’ reasons (or those you’ve created in your head and assigned to other people) for supporting this repeal. I’ve gone to great lengths to explain why I believe it should have been repealed. The least you could do (if you’re interested in a mature discussion, that is) is to counter my arguments, not theirs.

    That you continue to lump me in with those with whom you disagree is evidence you’re not actually reading my posts. That you continue to insist I defend points I’m not making is, again, pathological?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 1:34 pm - December 19, 2010

  7. I think this issue is filled with logical fallacies, on both sides sides of the isle. Everyone sees the outcome that they prefer, and they fail to communicate the logical thread from point A, to point B.

    I don’t think it’s as much a limitation of thei argument as it is a limitation of language. No matter how hard we try, we cannot avoid the risk of a misunderstanding.

    ————-

    Would an example be easier to understand by everyone?

    Contrary to popular belief, it actually IS the job of the military to discriminate against certain people. It’s one of the tools they use to do their job as efficiently as they can. The military doesn’t have to let Nazis join their ranks if they suspect that they’re going to disrupt everything. And while there is nothing inherently ‘illegal’ about being a hateful person (as long as they don’t act on it) the morale of the military community could be adversely affected by his presence.

    Does DADT mean that we now have to accept everyone who volunteers for service?
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - December 19, 2010

  8. Which leads to the next logical question: Why should “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” be the basis for special treatment either?

    Are you just talking about special treatment under military law, if so, what special treatment do they receive? I’m not familiar with military law. Or are you talking federal protections? or are you talking Constitutional protections for religion and race? Or all of the above?

    Sorry, just need to know what the question is first.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - December 19, 2010

  9. AE:
    Within the context of where that quote comes up (in the executive summary, p. 13), the question is regarding MEO (Military Equal Opportunity) policies. These policies hamstring effective command by allowing members of selected groups the ability to scream “discrimination” if they’re not promoted, not given certain assignments, not given accommodations, etc.

    Commanders live in white-knuckle fear of crossing these groups and go so far as limiting their troops’ ability to even learn about their differences (you know, become more diverse and tolerant) through open and honest discussion.

    MEO is a destructive policy and runs counter to its suggested goals. If DADT’s repeal, and the implementation of a new post-DADT policy and philosophy can be used to dismantle this lame-brained anti-military approach to bridging our differences, then all the better.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 2:08 pm - December 19, 2010

  10. By the way, for people who try to reject slippery slope arguments. Those who told us to

    Look at Europe! They have gay marriage!
    Look at Europe! They have gays in the military!

    Why do I suspect they are suddenly going to hope we
    Don’t look at Europe! Nothing to see there.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 2:10 pm - December 19, 2010

  11. “Within the context of where that quote comes up (in the executive summary, p. 13), the question is regarding MEO (Military Equal Opportunity) policies.”

    ———

    Is that the policy that allowed Nidal Hassan to stay in the military, and to eventually shoot-up Fort Hood?
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 2:18 pm - December 19, 2010

  12. gg:
    Yea, kinda.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 2:21 pm - December 19, 2010

  13. “..the social balkanization the Left so often loves to use to drive us apart.”

    (Holding my head, rolling my eyes, and groaning….)

    I realize you have to cater to your audience here, but this is way ridiculous…

    It has always been the right, of course, who enforced racial discrimination, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    It has always been the right, of course, who told women that they should stay home and bake cookies, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    It has always been the right, of course, who continue to do all they can to isolate gays from the mainstream of American life, and the left, has succeeded greatly in countering that. Let us not forget who deserves 100% of the credit for what just happened.

    So no, you may not like the fact that the left continues to work to end bigotry and discrimination after the law or the regulation has changed – but you cannot pretend that these efforts are somehow imposing a balkanization that drives us apart.

    It is, and always has been, the forces on the right that have divided us, and imposed discrimination and injustice on minority groups.

    You should show some grace and character by acknowledging the decades of work and effort that has led to this day, done almost exclusively by people on the left, working against the people you seem to support.

    Comment by Yer ol' friend — December 19, 2010 @ 2:29 pm - December 19, 2010

  14. Thanks Nick. I’m sure you’re right about the effects of MEO. But I don’t hold out much hope that this repeal will help do away with such political correctness. I don’t know about military culture, but I know the victim groups in the larger culture would raise holy hell, and I don’t as yet have any confidence in anyone’s ability to stand up to it.

    Look at women. There are more women than men in America. Women make just as much if not more in comparable jobs. Men have borne the brunt of the recession. Far more women go to college, far more women graduate from college…. and is anyone even thinking, let alone talking about removing special rights for women? Hardly.

    The only reason for the existence of the Democrat party anymore is as a coalition of “victims” and their useful idiots. Say what you will about the intelligence of their world view, it is a powerful coalition that isn’t going away any time soon.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 2:35 pm - December 19, 2010

  15. …and I shouldnt forget that they have a lot of sympathizers on the moderate right as well.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 2:37 pm - December 19, 2010

  16. In my experience, the change of attitude had already begun. I served from 1966 through 1969. As sure as God made little green apples, I´m sure there were homophobes. In basic, the first sergeant was an old brown army southernerwho was. The CO may have been, but when I let it slip, he thought that I was trying to get out and whitewashed the matter by saying he didn´t believe me (not being obvious) and all I did was have an experience. It was in AIT that met other gay troops. As I commented in a previous post that when I rotated back from Korea to Ft. Meade, the number of gay guys that I met were a fairly good number. Many of whom I ran into in the gay bars of B´more and Georgetown. The final year of my military service more was one of my more enjoyable years of my gay life.

    Comment by Roberto — December 19, 2010 @ 2:38 pm - December 19, 2010

  17. So then this thread is about the validity of multiculturalism? It’s about whether we should even acknowledge a person’s ‘identity-status’ if we’re not allowed to base anything on that status?

    I don’t know. The more i look at ‘Multiculturalism’, the more i think the whole theory may be flawed.

    Isn’t it funny how we’re willing to recognize a racial, or cultural group, and in some ways respect the sovereignty of that group, but we’re not willing to respect the divisions of our republic that were setup as a defining feature of our republic; ‘state’s rights’?
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 2:40 pm - December 19, 2010

  18. What seems to be on many people’s mind is: What will the military be like now that we don’t have DADT any more? My expierence was long before DADT but I don’t believe there will be much change. You will be perfectly free to admire the beautiful boy that has a bunk next to yours. You may even become his best buddy. (Buddy was a term used at that time). But don’t climb in the bunk with him! Don’t ask, what would the High Command do? They would never hear about it because everything would be taken care of right there in the barrack. However, I have never heard of that happening the 6 years that I was in the Service. I had a very close buddy.In fact, if I appeared at the mess hall or other place alone, I was asked, Where is you other half? But absolutely no sex on base. Even the whores that worked the base had to stay outside the gate. However that did change at different locations.

    Comment by John W — December 19, 2010 @ 4:11 pm - December 19, 2010

  19. CP, I understand your stated rationale for supporting repeal, I just don’t buy it. And the reason I don’t buy it is that the social engineering motive for repealing DADT is so blatantly obvious that Stevie Wonder could see it. Just today on Yahoo! News is an article discussing how repeal may jump start efforts to move forward on other gay rights issues, particularly gay marriage. But you didn’t see that coming, right?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 4:27 pm - December 19, 2010

  20. Seane-Anna, the DADT repeal specifically states that nothing in the repeal will effect federal DOMA law. Just because some groups might use this to motivate their base for LGBT issues is irrelevant to the reality that actual DADT doesn’t change a thing about federal DOMA, state versions of DOMA, state amendments on marriage, etc…

    Comment by Anon — December 19, 2010 @ 4:41 pm - December 19, 2010

  21. […] DADT Repeal May Usher In A Colorblind Society (gaypatriot.net) […]

    Pingback by DADT– Don’t Accept, Don’t Tolerate « Weaselgal's Haven — December 19, 2010 @ 4:42 pm - December 19, 2010

  22. Seane-Anna:
    Well what can I say? I’ve told you (and have written countless posts here on the blog) over and over and over my rationale, that you even claim to “understand”.

    If you choose not to “buy it” that’s your choice.

    So what’s your point? That other people (besides ColoradoPatriot) have nafarious motivations in overturning DADT? Um, yea, I’ve acknowledged that every time I’ve written on the subject.

    So then again, what’s your point? What do you want to see me write? That because some other people have bad motivations that I should abandon my principles and my commitment to national security and decide that the threat that existed due to DADT was worth it as long as you weren’t toubled by my stance on the issue?

    Surely you can’t be suggesting that.

    Or perhaps when you say you “don’t buy it” that I have that as my motivation you’re suggesting that I’m not being honest in my own reasons? If that’s the case, then why do you even engage me at all? If you hold such disdain and contempt for my integrity and honesty, why on earth even communicate with me? Why show me that honor at all?

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — December 19, 2010 @ 4:48 pm - December 19, 2010

  23. AE, what an eye opening link you posted on your #10 comment. I’ve argued that legalizing gay marriage can and will lead to the legalizing and normalizing of all other aberrant sexual behaviors/lifestyles, and I was ridiculed for it. Now comes news that Switzerland is considering abolishing its laws against incest. I would say I told you so, but this is too disturbing to gloat about.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 4:54 pm - December 19, 2010

  24. “Now comes news that Switzerland is considering abolishing its laws against incest.”

    ——–

    I’ll bet that has something to do with Islam.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 19, 2010 @ 5:11 pm - December 19, 2010

  25. Would it be ‘equal footing’ for men and women to sleep in the same barracks? The fact is that housing sexually desiring soldiers in the same bunks as their desired objects is a recipe for disaster.

    Comment by eaglewingz08 — December 19, 2010 @ 5:27 pm - December 19, 2010

  26. Why is it so hard for the Right-wing mentality, wrapped up in flags of “no special treatment,” to understand that DADT or, even before that, an outright ban on gay men and women was special treatment AGAINST gay men and women. The government was saying “we don’t like your sexual orientation regardless of your service and behavior, and therefore we will not allow you to serve.” The same canards used then, completely without basis of evidence, were used now against the repeal of DADT. With the repeal of DADT, the playing field is evened. The same standards and conditions can now be used fairly for all military personnel whether gay or straight. This could never be accomplished before; you can’t have fair rules for all personnel when you have a special rule a particular demographic of your population to keep them from serving. So not only does the repeal of DADT remove the bias against the service of out gay men and women, it gives military structure the ability to consider these individuals under the same rules as everyone else. Instead of instances when the simple knowledge of a gay service person’s sexuality prompted expulsion from the service, now commanders can consider the BEHAVIOR of a gay military member. Isn’t that the conservative ideal?

    And let’s get this out there, there will be instances where people claim bias due to their orientation. Some of these instances will undoubtedly be true and some will be regrettable false. But it happens with all sorts of people, including straight men and women, for all sorts of claimed biases.

    I find it sad that you all just assume the repeal will instantly create false claims of bias without considering. Do you ever wonder why so much of the population considers your viewpoints self-hating?

    Comment by Countervail — December 19, 2010 @ 5:51 pm - December 19, 2010

  27. Homophobes and racists will continue to exist; however we can hope that over time, the sexuality of a servicemember will become increasingly less important. The difference is that in our case, homophobia will no longer be state-sanctioned in the military. Gays can expect to be evaluated for promotion on an equal footing with their hetero collegues. No one is arguing that homophobic slurs will automatically cease.

    Some, like Senator McCain, may wish to continue the argument, but the fact is that the votes have been counted and it’s time to move on.

    If McCain is honest, he’ll have to agree that he served with gays in the Navy. . . . showered with them, fought with them, hung out with them in the OC.

    Comment by man — December 19, 2010 @ 5:55 pm - December 19, 2010

  28. I find it sad that you all just assume the repeal will instantly create false claims of bias without considering.

    No assumption required; one need only look at what the Obama Party and gay and lesbian people are already doing.

    An even better example: gays and lesbians shrieking that investigating and punishing a superior officer who demands sex from subordinates and punishes those who disobey is “homophobia and sexism”.

    You show the problem, Countervail. You scream that any gay person who dares criticize another gay person’s behavior is “self-loathing”. Why should you be allowed to teach when you consider reporting another gay person who sexually molests children to be wrong? Why should you be employed when you insist that your sexual orientation allows you to sexually harass people? Why should you be allowed to serve in the armed forces and make personnel decisions when you do so based on whether or not someone obeys your demand to have sex with them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 6:13 pm - December 19, 2010

  29. It has always been the right, of course, who enforced racial discrimination, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    Which is why Barack Obama and the Obama Party ordered the Department of Justice to ignore any cases of discrimination on the basis of race against white people.

    And it’s also why the Obama Party and the left demand racial discrimination in the awarding of government contracts.

    The left is purely racist and supports racist behavior.

    Next:

    It has always been the right, of course, who told women that they should stay home and bake cookies, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    Which is why Barack Obama and the Left screamed that Sarah Palin should stay at home and take care of her children rather than run for office, and why the left demanded that all conservative women drop out and not run for any elected position.

    The Left is sexist and misogynist. The Obama Party says all women who don’t do exactly what they want are “whores”, as exemplified by Obama Party leader Jerry Brown.

    The Left is racist, misogynist, and perverted, as we see from the recent claims of leftists that incest is perfectly all right.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 6:22 pm - December 19, 2010

  30. It has always been the right, of course, who enforced racial discrimination, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    It has always been the right, of course, who told women that they should stay home and bake cookies, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    It has always been the right, of course, who continue to do all they can to isolate gays from the mainstream of American life

    What alternate reality would this be????

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2010 @ 6:34 pm - December 19, 2010

  31. TGC, it would be the main one that most people live in, not the delusional one that’s so common for conservatives who want to believe what they imagine rather than what is. It’s more often the case that conservatives base their reality in their personal beliefs and rarely care about evidence to the contrary.

    Comment by Countervail — December 19, 2010 @ 6:45 pm - December 19, 2010

  32. So when Al Sharpton calls somebody a “punk faggot”, he meant it in the nicest possible way?

    Or when Bill Richardson called a guy “maricon” on the Imus Show?

    Or when Pete Stark called another Congressman “fruitcake”?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2010 @ 6:51 pm - December 19, 2010

  33. “AE, what an eye opening link you posted on your #10 comment. I’ve argued that legalizing gay marriage can and will lead to the legalizing and normalizing of all other aberrant sexual behaviors/lifestyles, and I was ridiculed for it.”

    Let me get in that line, would you? All other??
    Please do explain that to me. Explain why same sex marriage is aberrant?
    And why is she allowed to post something like that on here??

    Comment by Bobbie — December 19, 2010 @ 7:16 pm - December 19, 2010

  34. I’m usually a big time conservative, and believe in family values and such. However, as I sit here and watch this political theater play out, I think “what the hell is the big deal?” If someone wants to take up arms and defend the country, they should be allowed to, irregardless of sexual identity. I played out the whole thing for the last several years, and denied my true self in the process. I used to be an anti-DADT repeal back then, but softened my stance because I feel, as a Christian, that we shouldn’t condemn those who are different, but welcome them. I’m in the middle of a long, tantalizing coming out process, and I cleared the emotionally devastating part. I welcome anyone who wishes to get into my face about being a “self-hater”, however, I will stand by my beliefs, albeit modified, as a conservative and a Christian. However, I will not stand here and say “You can serve in the military, just as long as you are not homosexual”. The only thing that really angers me is the process in which this came about.

    Comment by Chris — December 19, 2010 @ 7:33 pm - December 19, 2010

  35. And why is she allowed to post something like that on here??

    Because, Bobbie, this site values opinions that vary.

    You are free to go somewhere else, but I doubt that you’ll find the gay liberal sites give you any type of a warm reception once you start posting things like you have here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 19, 2010 @ 8:20 pm - December 19, 2010

  36. That’s an opinion, is it?
    Sounds more like hate to me.
    Can’t wait for her response.

    Comment by Bobbie — December 19, 2010 @ 8:23 pm - December 19, 2010

  37. Well, if hate weren’t allowed, none of you liberals would be able to post.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 19, 2010 @ 8:41 pm - December 19, 2010

  38. Bobbie, this one’s for you.

    aberrant
    Adjective
    Deviating from the proper or expected course.
    Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
    American Heritage Dictionary Online

    aberrant
    Adjective
    Straying from the right or normal way.
    Deviating from the usual or natural type: Atypical.
    Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online

    Do the definitions of “aberrant” from these online dictionaries clear things up for you, Bobbie? Gay marriage, and homosexuality generally, fit them perfectly. They do deviate from what’s proper, expected, and normal. And they’re untrue to type, with opposite sex attraction being the norm for the human “type”.

    And Bobbie, why is it hate to point out that gay marriage is aberrant? Even if you think that view is wrong, how is it hateful? If I said polygamous marriage is aberrant–and it is, at least in America–would you call that hate? Didn’t think so.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 9:14 pm - December 19, 2010

  39. Explain why same sex marriage is aberrant?

    um, how bout because that’s pretty much the definition of the word aberrant? Deviating from the norm. Hello?

    and can we please have no more of this horsepoop about how the right supposedly had anything to do with racism in America.

    The Democrat party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and now institutionalized racism by keeping blacks poor, uneducated and dependent on them.

    Just look how venomous liberals get when a black person (Condaleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, etc) steps off the Democrat plantation. I believe the “progressive” liberal Ted Rall called Condi a House nigger for refusing to be dependent on the party of big government.

    And the movements to abolish slavery, segregation, the womens’ suffrage movement etc were all led, not by atheist regressive communist wards of the state, but by conservative Christian Republicans like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr

    Comment by American Elephant — December 19, 2010 @ 9:33 pm - December 19, 2010

  40. @TGC Because of one post I’m a liberal?
    You do love your labels, don’t you?

    Comment by Bobbie — December 19, 2010 @ 10:13 pm - December 19, 2010

  41. @ Seane-Anna Save your cut and paste.
    The last thing I need are a list of dictionary definitions.
    I don’t accept that gay marriage deviates from what’s “expected” or “normal”. I live in MA and it’s expected and normal here.

    And I DO accept that the word aberrant has a negative connotation no matter how many dictionary definitions you want to cut and paste.

    I don’t think it’s a coincidence you used aberrant in an earlier post RIGHT BEFORE mentioning how Switzerland is considering abolishing incest laws. So is incest simply “Straying from the right or normal way.”??

    You can hide behind your dictionary definitions all you want.
    I’m not buying it.

    Comment by Bobbie — December 19, 2010 @ 11:13 pm - December 19, 2010

  42. Bobbie, you asked what was aberrant about gay marriage and I gave you the definitions of “aberrant” since your question implied you didn’t know them. And I never denied the negative connotation of the word “aberrant”. I used it fully aware of that. And yes, Bobbie, incest is “straying from the right or normal way”…just like homosexuality.

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 19, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - December 19, 2010

  43. Why isn’t homosexuality right? I just don’t see how being gay fits that definition of aberrant.

    I mean I guess it comes down to opinion, but there’s nothing wrong, legally or morally, with being gay. Though incest is illegal, which would make it wrong, thus fitting that definition.

    Not saying anything you said was hateful, just don’t feel as though being gay fits that definition.

    Comment by AJ — December 19, 2010 @ 11:53 pm - December 19, 2010

  44. “Though incest is illegal, which would make it wrong, thus fitting that definition.”

    AJ, are you implying that incest is wrong ONLY because it’s illegal? So, in your mind, if the Swiss do abolish their laws against incest that would make incest right?

    And my belief that homosexuality is wrong comes from the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, something that I suspect most people here despise. But that is the foundation of my worldview.

    And what, btw, convinces you that homosexuality is right?

    Comment by Seane-Anna — December 20, 2010 @ 12:21 am - December 20, 2010

  45. No I’m not implying that at all. My only point is that it is illegal so it fits that definition since it isn’t “right”.

    I respect your beliefs and your right to hold them and I’m sure we’re more similar in that sense than you would think. Though I don’t feel that the Bible and Judeo- Christian beliefs are the sole source of morality. I feel that gay relationships can be just as normal, and healthy as straight relationships.

    Comment by AJ — December 20, 2010 @ 12:34 am - December 20, 2010

  46. Classic GayPatriot.

    The only time a conservative will espouse unilateral disarmament is in treatment of minorities, including gays.

    “oh, just back off and society will come around! no need for ‘special laws’!”

    Yikes.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — December 20, 2010 @ 1:00 am - December 20, 2010

  47. Well, if you want us to take up arms against gays and other minorities, that seems a bit odd and over the top, but OK. It’s always good to be well armed.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 20, 2010 @ 4:45 am - December 20, 2010

  48. Typical GoB troll, nothing useful to add.

    Bobbie, words do have meaning. Aberrant fits for a sexual preference that only cleaves to 2-4(being genrous)% of the population. Just like for years lefties were treated as aberrant. Jsut like since I’ve been dignosed with depression and social anxiety disorder I meet the definition of ‘insane’.

    You have a choice. You can whine about being aberrrant, or you can realize, life’s tough, get a helmet, and accept that you deviate from the norm.

    The (insane, sinister, devient) Livewire.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 20, 2010 @ 6:31 am - December 20, 2010

  49. Haven’t yet chimed in on the DADT repeal until now. I don’t need to add to all the excellent comments in support of the repeal except to say, it’s about time.

    An even better example: gays and lesbians shrieking that investigating and punishing a superior officer who demands sex from subordinates and punishes those who disobey is “homophobia and sexism”.

    We’re back to using a reprehensible creature like Bonnie Bleskavich to support your argument? Once again, a) How is what Bleskavich thinks is homophobia and sexism represented of all gay people and/or those who support them? b) Even so, her argument was not that it was okay to harass people, but that she never engaged in that criminal behavior, a tactic used by criminals even when guilt is obvious.

    Seane-Anna, in the spirit of your use of aberrant, then let me say that your views of homosexuality are just that. Sorry that your views are becoming as extinct as dinosaurs.

    And what, btw, convinces you that homosexuality is right?

    I’ll answer that as well. We all come to certain conclusions regarding what we believe is moral and just. Most of us now don’t rely solely on what a religious tradition of thousands of years says. We’ve seen in many cases, that such traditions have become outdated. Homosexuality is one of them. In fact, many religions, including ones with long histories, are now accepting of homosexuality.

    As for incest, that’s kind of tricky. First of all, incest seems to have been a tradition. Many royal families have engaged in such behavior with varying degrees of acceptance. There even seems to be some acceptance of it in the Bible. Incest is less acceptable now than it has been in the past. So what’s your point? Slippery slopes? Then perhaps we should make all sex illegal. Then we won’t have to worry about incest and homosexuality, right?

    Comment by Pat — December 20, 2010 @ 7:24 am - December 20, 2010

  50. So, finally we have uncovered the raw nerve. Let’s ban all words that put gay attractions and gay sex in a negative light. Let’s make being gay a third gender. Let’s have three boxes to check: Male, Female, Gay. Now let’s get out to the park and build a gay restroom and meeting area. Lets have gay restrooms at the airport and let the Senator go in there without notice. Gay restrooms are to pee, greet and meet. They would be an equal opportunity sort of place.

    Let’s stipulate that gays who oppose gay marriage, who are not flamboyant, who do not hop from flower to flower are still closeted and self-loathing. Let us furthermore stipulate that much of religious belief about same-sex sex is institutionalized hate speech. Let us create a word that we can place along misogyny to nail people who do not fully embrace their gay fellow travelers and all that they do.

    To think that “aberrant” spawned all of this! Let’s not even think of ever accusing a person who happens to be gay of decadent behavior. The new gender and entirety of its “activities” is the norm and everyone in the old two gender system had best get used to it. There can be tsk-tsking among men and women, but not among gays.

    Really, are people commenting here really wanting to do this type of public psychotherapy?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 20, 2010 @ 9:40 am - December 20, 2010

  51. Heliotrope, since I also addressed “aberrant” let me address your point. Frankly, I don’t like getting hung up on words either, but aberrant does seem to evoke more than just trying to make the point that someone has a trait that isn’t shared by most people. I’m guessing that Seane-Anna chose that word to make that point.

    Further, Seane-Anna’s use of the word aberrant described all homosexual persons, without regard to whether they engage in the other types of behaviors you described. I haven’t read all of her posts, so I may have missed it, but I’ve never seen her say that “homosexuality is okay, I just don’t like it when they have sex in public restrooms. Gee, come to think of it, I don’t it anyone has sex in public restrooms.”

    Let us create a word that we can place along misogyny to nail people who do not fully embrace their gay fellow travelers and all that they do.

    So you are upset with the way people use the term “homophobe”? People overuse the term when one doesn’t buy anything a gay person does, lock, stock, and barrel. A point you obviously think (as I do) is unfair. I guess we can all use public psychotherapy then. 🙂

    Comment by Pat — December 20, 2010 @ 10:56 am - December 20, 2010

  52. #23 Seane-Anna: “…and I was ridiculed for it.” Cry me a river, Seane-Anna! Coming from a commentor that spews godawful & off-kilter prose with dreary regularity, that complaint was particularly rich. Boo effin hoo.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — December 20, 2010 @ 11:28 am - December 20, 2010

  53. You know, Pat, that there is no gay “community” or gay “agenda” without dragging all gays into it. Let us assume that you are a gay who has reached a point where you are comfortable with life in general and your spot in the society where your live. Now, if the gay “agenda” says that you have to join in attacking the existing order to establish a new gay “right” are you obligated by your gay identification to take up the cause, or can you just take the position of “not interested” and risk being not gay enough?

    The word “misogyny” applies to men who hate women because they are women. The word “homophobe” applies to people who hate gays due to what gays do. If the gay does not “do gay” then he may be suspected of being gay, but the “homophobe” is not engaged in exhibiting homophobia. Closeted gays sense this.

    I have neighbors who are in their seventies and are house mates. The two of them have been best of friends for years and years. They co-own property, travel together and are best friends. They sometimes go their separate ways when their interests diverge. Are they lesbians? Who knows? Why ask? They are part of the heart of our community and their business is their business. Period.

    Should we sneak around and if they turn out to be lesbians, should we post a sign and make them own up? Or, it they turn out not to be lesbians should we post a sign to ward off any loose chatter that may occur?

    Strangely, it is our local lesbian neighbor who is most “certain” about the ladies. Why she thinks we appreciate her speculation is beyond me. I would far rather have three people as good neighbors than have a meaningless mark placed on them. Oh, and how do I know the lesbian is a lesbian? She makes it her business for you to have that information.

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 20, 2010 @ 11:56 am - December 20, 2010

  54. “Treat us the same because we are the same, but treat us different because we are different.”

    🙂 Make up your minds!

    It’s looking more and more like multiculturalism was a misguided attempt at forcing equality. Our cultural ‘moral authority’ (an elected office?) has seen fit to ‘assist in’ perpetuating the separate identities of a community. But instead of respecting the 300 million separate identities of the American community, it has decided to separate the ‘herd’ into more generalized groupings; Hetero, Homo, Black, White, Hispanic, Female, Male, etc, so that whenever a dispute erupts between members of different ‘PC-groups’, some form of special hatred can only be the cause.

    Why cant one person just disagree with another without all this crap? Let’s keep in mind that our individual identities are themselves, ‘cultural’ distinctions. Each one of us, with our own distinct set of values and beliefs, have been disagreeing with each other since time began, and usually without any sinister motives being involved. (see: Reductio ad Hitlerum)

    Every human being is much more than a race, a creed, or a color. The ‘due-respect for all humans’ that Liberals claim to seek can only be found in the recognition of each individual. Multiculturalism is doing a disservice to the human spirit by generalizing people as if they were heads of cattle.

    The only reason for government to recognize any ‘general’ division of the population is if it intends to hold those different divisions to different standards.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 20, 2010 @ 12:30 pm - December 20, 2010

  55. Honestly, if the word were used only in reference to same sex marriage, I’m sure I wouldn’t have spouted off.
    But after seeing the word used to describe incestuous relationships, THEN used to describe same sex marriage (Two completely different types of relationships!) that’s where I found offense.
    I certainly should have made myself clearer but I’ll admit that I suffer from Type-First-Think-Later Syndrome, sometimes.

    Comment by Bobbie — December 20, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - December 20, 2010

  56. Pat, if you would read the article I provided on Bleskachek, you would see the problem.

    Put bluntly, a straight white male with that many sexual harassment complaints against them would have been drummed out, not promoted multiple times, made chief, and trumpeted as a hero for the gay and lesbian community plus a diversity trophy for the Obama Party.

    The truly disgusting thing is how the gay and lesbian community covered up for and enabled Bleskachek’s behavior. Why do you think that sort of thing will be good for our country’s military?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2010 @ 12:39 pm - December 20, 2010

  57. Because, gatorgrab, if you can be categorized, you can decontrolled, and if you can be controlled, you can be used.

    The Obama Party relies on the categorization and control of minorities. This is why any minority member who fails to agree with the Obama Party is immediately attacked as an Uncle Tom, a traitor, a kapo, Jewish Nazi, etc. It is meant to indoctrinate, frighten, and punish people into following the Obama Party’s dogma that minorities are their slaves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2010 @ 12:43 pm - December 20, 2010

  58. @NDT, Thanks but I’ll be honest, I don’t care whether or not I’m “welcomed” on a site. I post on liberal sites, conservative sites and in between sites and I surely do know how to leave when my sense of morality has taken enough of a beating.

    I was a big fan of V the K but haven’t visited his site since he commented on here and referred to a transsexual as It.
    No fuss. No muss. Just haven’t gone back. I was a bit disappointed that the reference stayed up on here, but I’m still here because I believe I can learn something.
    Maybe one of those lessons will be to think longer before I let my fingers hit the keys. 🙂

    Comment by Bobbie — December 20, 2010 @ 12:47 pm - December 20, 2010

  59. @Seane-Anna “since your question implied you didn’t know them.”

    Jeez. I’m not even close to buying THAT. Hopefully, you were being sarcastic since the only other alternative is that you’re lieing.

    Comment by Bobbie — December 20, 2010 @ 1:00 pm - December 20, 2010

  60. Many have argued this is a stepping-stone to a larger “gay rights” agenda. I’ve never seen it as such, and I regret that there will definitely be many gay “rights” champions who will misuse this to further their own agenda (much as those opposed to gay “rights” will also use it to further their agenda). They have no concern necessarily about the defense of the Nation nor about the military. We are a tool for them to use and they should be ashamed, if they knew any such thing as shame in the first place.

    I don’t know why you have to be such an asshole about this kind of stuff man. I know that as a conservative in the military, it’s practically impossible for you to resist the urge to accuse liberals of hating the military and clamoring for your death and the deaths of your friends, and I’m sure that you think that your position grants you license to make these assertions authoritatively, but it doesn’t.

    Repealing DADT wasn’t a means to an end, it was a victory in and of itself that will hopefully and most likely move forward gay equality in other areas. You’re arguing with an imaginary friend if you think the gay movement is about capturing special rights for gays. It’s always been about equal rights and it’s been waged against predominantly conservative political and religious institutions who benefit from stigmatizing homosexuality. Most Republicans voted against this bill buddy – so you have liberals to thank, whether you want to act like a child and pretend like they’re just using you as a prop or not. I’m sure that if I were gay and I declared allegiance to a political ideology that was explicitly anti-gay, I’m sure I’d come up with some half-hearted conspiracy theories as well.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2010 @ 1:05 pm - December 20, 2010

  61. Colorado Patriot, I love ya guy, but the entire history of Federal Intervention in social issues shows that that Government Intervention in social issues doesn’t solve them, it exacerbates them.

    The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s did not result in a color-blind society. Instead, Federal policies, particularly Affirmative Action, made racial divisions worse by putting race groups in the position of fighting each other for access to preferential treatment.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2010 @ 1:10 pm - December 20, 2010

  62. Bobbie writes:

    I surely do know how to leave when my sense of morality has taken enough of a beating.

    I was a big fan(….) but haven’t visited his site since he commented on here and referred to a transsexual as It.
    No fuss. No muss. Just haven’t gone back.

    Your level of “tolerance” is rather narrow. Apparently your “sense of morality” “take(s) enough of a beating” when your unknown speech code of political correctness is breached.

    So, are we to believe that your “sense of morality” is next to Godliness and unimpeachable? After all, you clearly inform us that when we sully your perfect balance in any way you simply bug off with “no fuss” and “no muss” other than to come back and inform us of your piety.

    I wonder if you would care to round up offenders of your “sense of morality” and reeducate them? Extreme cases could be candidates for the final solution. Or, do you just sit alone in your room and keep track of your grievances?

    Perhaps your didn’t quite understand the church lady character on SNL. Maybe you didn’t know that the character perfectly parodies atheist scolds as well. (Just for clarity, I am not implying that you are an atheist.)

    When you depart an offending site do you leave a hole? If a tree doesn’t fall when you are in the forest, does it still have the potential to make a sound?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 20, 2010 @ 1:15 pm - December 20, 2010

  63. If DADT had to be repealed, it was accomplished the best way possible. No court ruling, lots of hearings and discussion, a clean vote as a stand-alone bill, and giving the military the timetable to make it work. If various other countries can deal with openly gay military personnel, so can we. Don’t sell our troops short. They can handle this. Those that can’t-well, put your big boy underpants on and deal. One has to question your military readiness if the mere presence of an openly gay person turns you into a quivering mess.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — December 20, 2010 @ 1:46 pm - December 20, 2010

  64. Now, if the gay “agenda” says that you have to join in attacking the existing order to establish a new gay “right” are you obligated by your gay identification to take up the cause, or can you just take the position of “not interested” and risk being not gay enough?

    Heliotrope, it is the latter. Like any community, group, culture, whatever it is, or whatever you want to call it, I don’t agree with everything. And if someone wants to believe that I am not gay enough, or aberrant, I may take issue with it.

    I am not disagreeing with what you wrote in your last post. I was really just addressing the term “aberrant.” At this point, I spent much more time on it than it is worth, so I’ll just leave it at that.

    Put bluntly, a straight white male with that many sexual harassment complaints against them would have been drummed out, not promoted multiple times, made chief, and trumpeted as a hero for the gay and lesbian community plus a diversity trophy for the Obama Party.

    NDT, then why didn’t you just say that? Then I wouldn’t have been able to counter what you wrote.

    The truly disgusting thing is how the gay and lesbian community covered up for and enabled Bleskachek’s behavior.

    Yes, it is disgusting when one covers up that type of behavior. But was it the community? I’m sure many people covered it up, including the cretin herself. She had many allies, straight or gay that supported her. But eventually, many of them rightfully abandoned her. And obviously, the lesbians that were harassed by her wasn’t in on the game.

    Why do you think that sort of thing will be good for our country’s military?

    For the same reason why I think beating my wife is good. In other words, I don’t think it is good for our country’s military, or anything else, for that matter. If we are only going to allow people in the military that belong to communities, groups, etc., that have never done anything wrong, then our military will be a bit short on troops. Put the blame on Bleskavich, and these problems that you anticipate where it really belongs.

    Comment by Pat — December 20, 2010 @ 1:54 pm - December 20, 2010

  65. Why should our troops have to “handle” anything?

    Why would you deliberately impose something that will cause an issue for our troops?

    Answer: Because social engineering is all you care about. Just like the Fort Hood shooter was allowed to stay despite a history of erratic behavior because getting rid of him would have harmed “diversity”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2010 @ 1:59 pm - December 20, 2010

  66. 40.@TGC Because of one post I’m a liberal?
    You do love your labels, don’t you?

    Are you a Countervail sock puppet?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 20, 2010 @ 2:04 pm - December 20, 2010

  67. Answer: Because social engineering is all you care about. Just like the Fort Hood shooter was allowed to stay despite a history of erratic behavior because getting rid of him would have harmed “diversity”.

    That’s right. That’s all ILC, John, Colorado Patriot, Bruce, and Dan, and scores others on this site, care about. Or perhaps I, like the ones I mentioned believe that repealing DADT is not only the right thing to do, but will ultimately benefit the military and this country. You disagree, fine? But don’t demonize my position.

    My point was that if we are looking to have military consisting of persons only belonging to groups with spotless records, we won’t have any military.

    Was the Fort Hood shooter also gay, besides being Muslim? Is that the gay community’s fault as well? Or should the real problems be addressed instead of making excuses for your position? In other words, support policies through whatever means possible, so that persons are treated (including being disciplined) regardless of the person’s background, etc.

    Or are you suggesting that Muslims also be banned from serving?

    Comment by Pat — December 20, 2010 @ 2:25 pm - December 20, 2010

  68. Now that orientation is no longer a bar to military service, let’s all of us, gay and straight, black and white, now that we’re on equal footing, get back to the business at hand: hating undocumented workers.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 20, 2010 @ 2:34 pm - December 20, 2010

  69. Let’s have three boxes to check: Male, Female, Gay.

    Tsk tsk tsk. Back to sensitivity training Heliotrope! You forgot the boxes for lesbian (lesbians demand their own box), bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, and whatever other letters they have added to the acronym since I last checked.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 20, 2010 @ 2:41 pm - December 20, 2010

  70. By the way, I’d also note regarding DADT ushering in a new colorblind society…isn’t that what they said electing Obama would do? The post-racial president? And all he has done is to increase racial tension and division, using his skin color to attack anyone who criticizes him.

    Same will happen here. Not with most, but it only takes a few bad apples to ruin the bunch.

    Comment by American Elephant — December 20, 2010 @ 2:45 pm - December 20, 2010

  71. Funny, Pat, here I thought you could point to examples of the American Muslim community and it’s leaders condemning the Fort Hood shootings.

    Can you do the same for Bradley Manning?

    Actually, you get the opposite; the leadership of the gay and lesbian community is defending Bradley Manning and whining about his “unfair” treatment.

    How about for Bleskachek? Can you point to anywhere that the organizations like HRC and NGLTF that endorsed her repudiate her behavior?

    That is the point, Pat. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the Obama Party and the unions are out shrieking that it is “homophobic” for a business to fire a worker who even the San Francisco Commission on Human Rghts found to be severely and pervasively sexually harassing his coworkers. Do you think these bigots, who have already blabbered about how they want to eliminate the military and how our troops are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, will accept any discipline whatsoever of a gay person?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2010 @ 3:06 pm - December 20, 2010

  72. Bleskachek

    gasundheit

    Comment by American Elephant — December 20, 2010 @ 3:39 pm - December 20, 2010

  73. Sorry, NDT, but I don’t think your arguments are relevant here, unless you are also saying that Muslims as well as gays should not be in the military. Or at best, both under a DADT scenario. Anyway, I disagree.

    Comment by Pat — December 20, 2010 @ 4:12 pm - December 20, 2010

  74. American Elephant: You are so correct. I will take myself away to sensitivity training as soon as possible. Would it work the have the third box be “LGBT et al” or would that allow the third gender choice to include arsonists and Friends of Anarchy?

    Comment by Heliotrope — December 20, 2010 @ 5:06 pm - December 20, 2010

  75. It has always been the right, of course, who enforced racial discrimination, and the left that successfully overcame it.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. Boy, Countervail, do you ever need to brush up on history!

    – Slavery in America: defended by Democrats.
    – Slaves liberated: by Republicans.
    – Jim Crow: established, then defended by Democrats.
    – Japanese interned in WW2: by Democrats. (the Roosevelt administration)
    – 1960s civil rights bills: key support from Republicans. (Partly to their discredit, as some key provisions of the bills in question were/are unconstitutional.)
    – Eugenics theory: promoted in America by leftists/socialists such as Margaret Sanger.
    – Nazism: a phenomenon of the Left, as the very name means National *Socialism*.

    Because social engineering is all you care about.

    No actually; human freedom under small government – and hard money – would have a better claim to being “all I care about”, if my blog comments are the measure of that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2010 @ 6:10 pm - December 20, 2010

  76. So, you’re saying, ILC, that if there is an outdated and unjust law, it is better to change it rather than enforce it? You would say that since DADT was outdated and unjust, changing it was the right thing to do, right?

    Now, let’s see if Republicans will change outdated and unjust immigration laws so that those who have come to America to seek a better life, regardless of their current legal status, can stay here and lead productive lives.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — December 20, 2010 @ 7:38 pm - December 20, 2010

  77. Don’t forget the story behind the passage of the 18th and 19th Amendments!

    The Womens Suffrage was protesting daily outside of the Woodrow Wilson white house until one of Wilson’s old college buddies intervened. At John’s Hopkins University, Wilson became friends with the future North Carolina state legislator, Thomas Dixon. Dixon was the founder of the modern Ku Klux Klan. His popular book, ‘The Clansman’, inspired the D.W. Griffith classic, ‘Birth of a Nation’.

    The Klan at that time shared some of the same goals as the emerging Womens movement, namely alcohol prohibition, and they saw an opportunity to polarize the incoming new voters as Democrats. After the Klan explained their plan to the White House, Woodrow Wilson reversed himself.
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 20, 2010 @ 7:50 pm - December 20, 2010

  78. That should read “The Women’s Suffrage Movement was….”

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 20, 2010 @ 7:56 pm - December 20, 2010

  79. Oops, another correction!

    The second “refounding” of the Ku Klux Klan was “inspired by Birth of a Nation”, but it was founded by a man named William Joseph Simmons. (according to Wikipedia)
    .

    Comment by gastorgrab — December 20, 2010 @ 8:04 pm - December 20, 2010

  80. So, you’re saying, ILC, that if there is an outdated and unjust law, it is better to change it rather than enforce it?

    Addressed to me? Unable to relate it to anything I’ve said in this thread. Must be in response to someone else’s comment.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2010 @ 8:41 pm - December 20, 2010

  81. ColoradoPatriot wrote:
    “…which, as we say in the business is now OBE…”

    Since I must not be in the business (what business?), please clarify.

    OBE Overtaken By Events
    OBE Overcome By Events
    OBE Office/Officer of the Order of the British Empire
    OBE Order of the British Empire
    OBE Out of Body Experience
    OBE Outcome-Based Education
    OBE On-Board Equipment
    OBE Online Booking Engine
    OBE Operating-Basis Earthquake
    OBE One Boson Exchange
    OBE Odontología Basada en la Evidencia
    OBE Office of Business Economics
    OBE Original Black Entertainment (British TV channel)
    OBE Other Buggers Efforts
    OBE Over Bloody Eighty (gifts)
    OBE Our Best Effort
    OBE Open Book Examination
    OBE Open Book Estimate
    OBE On-Board Equivalent (NASA)
    OBE Out-Board Electronics
    OBE Outboard Booster Engine
    OBE One Behind the Ear
    OBE Online Bidding Event
    OBE Overall Boat Effectiveness
    OBE Order of the Brown Envelope
    OBE Old But Everlasting

    Many thanks…
    TR

    Comment by Tyrone Revere — December 20, 2010 @ 10:09 pm - December 20, 2010

  82. Sorry, NDT, but I don’t think your arguments are relevant here, unless you are also saying that Muslims as well as gays should not be in the military.

    Not really.

    Even CAIR wasn’t stupid enough to endorse and support a traitor. They’re no prize, but they’re a heck of a lot better than the gay and lesbian community and its endorsement and support of Bradley Manning.

    The Muslim community has demonstrated the ability to at least condemn the worst behavior of its own. The gay and lesbian community not only refuses to condemn it, but, as we see in the case of Glenn Greenwald, endorses and supports it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2010 @ 10:54 pm - December 20, 2010

  83. NDT, you seem to like that word, “shriek,” but the only “shrieking” I’ve been seeing is yours. Chill out, fella. You’re not the only one with an answer.

    Comment by East of Hawaii — December 21, 2010 @ 4:20 am - December 21, 2010

  84. #75
    ILC is oversimplifying politics and history like so many folks here do as usual.

    Political parties aren’t static. Since the Civil War, there were a few political realignments among the parties even to a point where Republicans were considered more ‘liberal’ than the Democrats.
    Before Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Republicans fared badly with the Southern states who were unquestionably more social conservative and racist than their northern counterparts. In the presidential elections prior to Nixon, the South were the blue states, while New England was a GOP bastion.

    Comment by Rob — December 21, 2010 @ 2:32 pm - December 21, 2010

  85. ILC is oversimplifying politics and history

    No, just laying out the facts.

    I notice, Rob, that you were completely incapable of denying any of the facts that I laid out. Instead, you turned to a bullsh*t re-framing strategy, oh but “Political parties aren’t static”, yadda yadda.

    Leftists inherently tend toward racism, Rob – and Democrats are the historic party of racism in America *and are still the party of racism in America today* – for a specific reason: because they don’t see people as individuals, created equal. Instead, they see people as mere appendages of their (alleged) group attributes. It’s called “collectivism”. It lies at the heart of leftism.

    Democrats in America today are *still* the party of racism (as they always have been, in American history). They are still the party of people who think in racial terms and who want to keep racial distinctions and divisions alive, in American life. They have merely switched from “Whites should be above”, to “Whites should be below”. That is the only and only real “realignment” here, Rob.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2010 @ 6:55 pm - December 21, 2010

  86. (type, should be “-one- and only real realignment”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2010 @ 6:56 pm - December 21, 2010

  87. And to make a few things clear FTR:
    1) Race is a totally false construct. People of all alleged “races” are at least 99.8% genetically identical. Democrats are not only wrong morally, but wrong on the scientific facts, to keep racial distinctions going in modern America.
    2) The fact that I give Republicans the greater credit in this area, means neither that Republicans are perfect in every area, nor that I am one.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2010 @ 7:07 pm - December 21, 2010

  88. #85

    I notice, Rob, that you were completely incapable of denying any of the facts that I laid out. Instead, you turned to a bullsh*t re-framing strategy, oh but “Political parties aren’t static”, yadda yadda.

    Pffft… I’m not denying the fact that the Democratic Party was on the wrong side when it came to slavery and civil rights. What I’m arguing is that most social conservatives were aligned with the Democratic Party before the period between Truman and Nixon. Think Strom Thurmond, Zell Miller, Robert Byrd, Henry Wallace, and the other Dixiecrats. Most of them left the Democratic party to join the GOP because of Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act based on libertarian principles. While Goldwater was a principled and great man, those that followed him weren’t. Remember well that he was disgusted at what the GOP became after his presidential campaign.

    The point is that partisanship is meaningless and you’ve fallen for it.

    Leftists inherently tend toward racism, Rob – and Democrats are the historic party of racism in America *and are still the party of racism in America today* – for a specific reason: because they don’t see people as individuals, created equal. Instead, they see people as mere appendages of their (alleged) group attributes. It’s called “collectivism”. It lies at the heart of leftism.

    Racism can be found in both right and left wings. While affirmative action is a form of ‘positive racism,’ so-called ‘individualists’ can want the right thing for the wrong reasons.

    Comment by Rob — December 21, 2010 @ 8:18 pm - December 21, 2010

  89. As the voice of experience (see my comment #16) my best buddy, who is both black and gay, and I since our Ft. Meade days decided, (after mustering out) to move to L.A. We made the trip by Greyhound. With a long stop in Springfield Mo. we decided to get a drink at a nearby local bar called the Blue Note. We were denied service, he for being black and me for accompanying him. Once in L.A., I drafted a letter ro President Nixon. It really angered me that an ex serviceman had been denied service for his color. He responded that the letter was forwarded to the Civil Rights Commission. Sometime later, they responded that ky letter was all the evidence they needed to prove discrimination and the bar was closed. I am an arch conservative but I will not tolerate racism.

    Comment by Roberto — December 22, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - December 22, 2010

  90. Your level of “tolerance” is rather narrow. Apparently your “sense of morality” “take(s) enough of a beating” when your unknown speech code of political correctness is breached.

    So, are we to believe that your “sense of morality” is next to Godliness and unimpeachable? After all, you clearly inform us that when we sully your perfect balance in any way you simply bug off with “no fuss” and “no muss” other than to come back and inform us of your piety.

    I wonder if you would care to round up offenders of your “sense of morality” and reeducate them? Extreme cases could be candidates for the final solution. Or, do you just sit alone in your room and keep track of your grievances?

    Perhaps your didn’t quite understand the church lady character on SNL. Maybe you didn’t know that the character perfectly parodies atheist scolds as well. (Just for clarity, I am not implying that you are an atheist.)

    When you depart an offending site do you leave a hole? If a tree doesn’t fall when you are in the forest, does it still have the potential to make a sound?

    I won’t participate in conversations where the sole purpose is to belittle.
    It goes against my moral code. 🙂
    No muss, no fuss….I simply won’t engage.

    Comment by Bobbie — December 23, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - December 23, 2010

  91. Not well thought out. Tons of unintended consequences and major disruption. For instance. This repeal will open the door for “Trans Gendered” soldiers. What barracks will they be assigned? Also, what about the partially trans gendered? Women who have had their breast removed and take hormones to be male but still have female genitial? Or men who take hormones and have breast implants but still have male genitial? Keep in mind that poor hormone maintenance dictates that when the artificial hormones wear off the previous chacracteristics return. Where will these creatures shower? Will female solders stay in the same baracks as “Chaz Bono”? Or would he/she shower with the men? I don’t believe Chaz has the full male toolset. He/she could claim discrimination. This will eventually end up at the supreme court.

    Comment by john — December 23, 2010 @ 1:51 pm - December 23, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.