GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/05/27/congress-moves-at-speed-of-light-on-dadt-repeal/trackback/

  1. But also in all seriousness — have you EVER seen Washington move this quickly on ANYTHING? There must be a lot of Homolobbying going on behind closed doors!

    Or it could be the 75% of the public being in favour of repealing DADT. It really is a dream scenario for the Democrats. After months of hearing “Listen to the people!” when it comes to healthcare reform, the Democrats propose repealing DADT, a hugely popular move among the American public. What do the Republicans do?

    I believe the American people don’t want to see the American military used to advance a liberal political agenda.

    Why won’t the Republicans listen to the people? They have announced loud and clear that they want to see the end of DADT, yet I’d be surprised to see even 10% of Republicans in either house of Congress vote in favour of killing it.

    The Democrats are right to push. The United States has had 17 years to debate this policy, and came to a conclusion years ago. With 75% in favour, they can’t lose.

    Comment by Serenity — May 27, 2010 @ 9:44 pm - May 27, 2010

  2. It is good to see that the acceptance of gays during the Bush Years allowed this vote to happen while most Americans now could give a shit about the whole issue.

    Clinton’s Anti Gay Record will always be there, though.

    Just saying….

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 27, 2010 @ 10:06 pm - May 27, 2010

  3. I’m beginning to believe politics is rather like a jack-in-the-box.

    Comment by DaveOnotinSF — May 27, 2010 @ 10:13 pm - May 27, 2010

  4. But also in all seriousness — have you EVER seen Washington move this quickly on ANYTHING? There must be a lot of Homolobbying going on behind closed doors!

    Hmmm…maybe all the Member’s G/L chiefs of staffs and senior aides threatened to quit on them, after taking a copy of the Member’s private files with them.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 27, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - May 27, 2010

  5. It is good to see that the acceptance of gays during the Bush Years allowed this vote to happen while most Americans now could give a shit about the whole issue.

    OK, at the risk of looking stupid, I can’t decode this statement. Is this the infuriating American habit of saying “could give a shit”, not even listening to what they’re saying (i.e. it being the opposite of “couldn’t give a shit”, what they actually mean) confusing me again?

    Also, the opposition to DADT was as high as 62% even in 2001. Why wasn’t it repealed during the Bush years? Well I think Republican majorities prior to 2007 had a lot to do with it (note how most are against repeal now, the feeling was even stronger back then) and the fact that Bush would veto any bill stopped it until 2009 (though this didn’t stop the Military Readiness Enhancement Act being proposed in the 109th and 110th Congresses).

    Just to hammer home my point on this, as the current version of the bill stands: “The 192 cosponsors in the House of Representatives consists of 190 Democrats and Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Joseph Cao”. 10% seems optimistic for the House at least, and goes a long way towards explaining why it’s taken so long (you don’t think even one Senate Republican would filibuster this?).

    Clinton’s Anti Gay Record will always be there, though.

    Oh will you be quiet. Clinton ran on repealing the ban on gays in the military and first proposed a complete repeal, DADT being the compromise measure agreed upon to get enough votes on side that it could actually be passed. For the time, it was as progressive as it could be.

    Your attempt to portray Clinton as an anti-gay bigot is absolutely pathetic and strikes me as an attempt to distract from the obvious fact that whenever opposition to gay rights arises in Congress, it is lead by the Republicans. The fact that your party loyalty can blind you to simple facts really does sadden me. You’re allowed to like their economic policies and stance on individual liberty but hate their bigoted views on homosexuality though, there’s no law against it…

    Comment by Serenity — May 27, 2010 @ 10:25 pm - May 27, 2010

  6. Your attempt to portray Clinton as an anti-gay bigot is absolutely pathetic and strikes me as an attempt to distract from the obvious fact that whenever opposition to gay rights arises in Congress, it is lead by the Republicans.

    So, since Clinton supported, endorsed, and bragged about his support for DADT, DOMA, and the like, you are stating that these are both fine examples of “supporting gay rights”.

    This isn’t surprising — after all, we know you support bans on gay-sex marriage as pushed by Obama Party members — but it is hilarious to watch you once again demonstrate your complete and total hypocrisy and inability to criticize your Obama Party massas.

    Why wasn’t it repealed during the Bush years?

    Because Republicans believe that the military should not be subjected to endless harassing lawsuits from gays and lesbians like yourself who believe your sexual orientation entitles you to ignore the rules.

    Therein lies the difference between the Obama Party and the Republicans. The Obama Party, the vast majority of whom have never served in combat except in their own imaginations, i.e. Blumenthal, consider the military “uninvited and unwanted intruders” and have no problem with harassing and attacking them.

    Hence DADT, which strikes right at the core of gay-sex liberalism; if you cannot put your military duty ahead of your sexual orientation, you don’t belong in the armed forces.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 10:39 pm - May 27, 2010

  7. Didn’t we just get some posts about why Obama isn’t moving on DADT? And now you want to go after them for moving quickly on the issue? I am rather bothered by that honestly.

    I think this thing doesn’t change anything until the review is up, but guess if people want to call it a victory…

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 27, 2010 @ 10:42 pm - May 27, 2010

  8. Clinton PROMOTED his support of DADT and DOMA in radio ads in his 1996 re-election campaign.

    Liberal Amnesia strikes again!

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 27, 2010 @ 10:47 pm - May 27, 2010

  9. wow…all that lobbying from GOProud for…5 whole votes. quite an effective organization you’ve got there.

    Comment by Chad — May 27, 2010 @ 10:47 pm - May 27, 2010

  10. The Trolls Come Out At Night… The Trolls Come Out At Night!

    Everybody sing!!!

    Comment by GayPatriot — May 27, 2010 @ 10:51 pm - May 27, 2010

  11. Didn’t we just get some posts about why Obama isn’t moving on DADT? And now you want to go after them for moving quickly on the issue? I am rather bothered by that honestly.

    Why?

    After all, didn’t the black Obama and the Obama Party promise they wouldn’t do anything until the review was complete?

    And didn’t the black Obama and the Obama Party say they would not force this on the military if the Joint Chiefs objected?

    Now they’ve done both. They lied, and they clearly did so out of nothing more than naked political opportunism, especially since they were insisting in January that it was absolutely important that they follow the process and complete the review.

    The fundamental reason for DADT is that the gay and lesbian community cannot be trusted to put that which is actually important ahead of pandering to sexual orientation. If you honestly believe that review is going to come out positive, why would you try to jam this through so quickly, especially in direct contradiction to your previous statements?

    Because you are putting pandering to sexual orientation ahead of what is actually important.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 10:59 pm - May 27, 2010

  12. Therein lies the difference between the Obama Party and the Republicans. The Obama Party, the vast majority of whom have never served in combat except in their own imaginations, i.e. Blumenthal, consider the military “uninvited and unwanted intruders” and have no problem with harassing and attacking them.

    Again, I think you’ve gone too far. Patrick Murphy, the sponsor of the amendment, served in Iraq and was the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress. There are many Democrats who served in the military, and some are decorated combat veterans. Veterans have many opinions, and they are not of one voice when it comes to opinions on DADT.

    Again, you’re lumping in the looniest Bay Area liberals for the Democratic Party as a whole. Nancy Pelosi may have talked the talk to rally her constituents, but when it came time to actually stop the war via defunding it, she and her party didn’t walk the walk.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 27, 2010 @ 11:00 pm - May 27, 2010

  13. Or, in other words, equating the kookiest of the antiwar left with the Democratic Party is just as flawed as equating the kookiest antigay social conservatives with the Republican Party.

    Hence DADT, which strikes right at the core of gay-sex liberalism; if you cannot put your military duty ahead of your sexual orientation, you don’t belong in the armed forces.

    I really think that gays in the military is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I can see problems with DADT in place, and I can see problems with gays serving openly. I do support this amendment simply because I feel that the military should set its own policy whenever necessary.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 27, 2010 @ 11:09 pm - May 27, 2010

  14. So, since Clinton supported, endorsed, and bragged about his support for DADT, DOMA, and the like, you are stating that these are both fine examples of “supporting gay rights”.

    I’d like to hear the ‘bragging’ for myself really.

    Clinton PROMOTED his support of DADT and DOMA in radio ads in his 1996 re-election campaign.

    Liberal Amnesia strikes again!

    I was 10. Give me a break.

    This isn’t surprising — after all, we know you support bans on gay-sex marriage as pushed by Obama Party members — but it is hilarious to watch you once again demonstrate your complete and total hypocrisy and inability to criticize your Obama Party massas.

    I would like a citation for ‘Obama Party’ (I assume you mean Democratic Party, in which case I shall start referring to the Palin Party) supporting bans on same-sex marriage. I’d be surprised to see any since the 2008 elections, which seems a fair cut-off given that we are talking about the ‘Obama Party’ here.

    Because Republicans believe that the military should not be subjected to endless harassing lawsuits from gays and lesbians like yourself who believe your sexual orientation entitles you to ignore the rules.

    Now we see the ugly side of the comments. You do know DADT has cost a total of $1.2 billion since its enactment, and that it’s resulted in the expulsion of numerous mission-critical men and women who would’ve continued serving if they could?

    Hence DADT, which strikes right at the core of gay-sex liberalism; if you cannot put your military duty ahead of your sexual orientation, you don’t belong in the armed forces.

    Therin lies the problem. Heterosexuals have no problem, knowing your fellow man in the armed forces has a girlfriend or wife is no problem. They’ll probably talk about how much they miss them. But a boyfriend? That’s the sort of talk that gets you kicked out!

    It’s unfair and discriminatory. It’s a stain on America’s reputation that this ugly compromise was ever required. The rest of the civilized world is doing fine with open gays in their militaries. If you think the American military can’t handle it, then I think you underestimate them.

    Comment by Serenity — May 27, 2010 @ 11:11 pm - May 27, 2010

  15. Patrick Murphy, the sponsor of the amendment, served in Iraq and was the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress.

    Which makes him a real self-loathing idiot, given how he supported and endorsed John Kerry, who told lies about veterans and smeared all those returning from Vietnam, and how he endorses and supports Nancy Pelosi and her rantings about soldiers being “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    Add to that the fact that, like a good little Pelosi boy, he opposed the Iraq surge and attacked and impugned General Petraeus, and it should be pretty obvious to everyone that he’s an Obama Party puppet first.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 11:16 pm - May 27, 2010

  16. I agree, if they decided to go with the review, then that is what they should have done. It would have given less cover to those who voted against the Repeal anyway, like Webb did. I believe Webb has a point that he wants to wait till the review is finished, thats a viable option.

    I just find it hard to be fair when posts have been that Obama was dragging his fight and then posts that now he is ramming it through. I don’t think he wanted to do this now, its mostly Pelosi trying to deliver to the gay community. She, like with healthcare, is using her influence and pushing for it. Obama feels like he is trapped, if he doesn’t support it it makes him looking even worse. He is just going with it now, he is being swept a long in the current.

    Clinton has apologized for DOMA and DADT, they were failsafe’s in my opinion against a worse evil. Wouldn’t we probably have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if they hadn’t passed DOMA? It sucks but its not as bad or as hard to undo as a constitution repeal. Thats my view on it, could be right or it could be wrong.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 27, 2010 @ 11:21 pm - May 27, 2010

  17. Now we see the ugly side of the comments. You do know DADT has cost a total of $1.2 billion since its enactment, and that it’s resulted in the expulsion of numerous mission-critical men and women who would’ve continued serving if they could?

    OMG! $1.2 billion over 17 years! Why, that’s 1/50th of the amount that the Obama Party wastes on Medicare fraud annually! Whatever will we do?

    Give it up, Serenity. Your Barack Obama blew over five times that amount on phantom “stimulus” spending and you didn’t give a rat’s rear. Don’t even try to pretend that the money matters when you will waste it that freely.

    Meanwhile, “mission-critical”? You and your fellow Obama Party dimwits insist there are no such things as terrorists or critical missions. You are insisting that gay and lesbian people are necessary to fight a war that you are in complete denial needs to be being fought in the first place.

    That, and if you knew anything about the military, you would know that one of its critical tenets is redundancy. Planes fly in pairs, ships travel in groups, and even snipers operate in teams. There is no such thing as a single “mission-critical” individual.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 11:27 pm - May 27, 2010

  18. “I really think that gays in the military is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. I can see problems with DADT in place, and I can see problems with gays serving openly.”

    Why such skepticism with this topic? Gay soldiers can handle getting along with their colleagues. Likewise with military straights relating to gays. Get over it.

    If your ass is on the line you’re not gonna’ care whether your colleague is gay or straight but whether they’re capable of performing.

    It’s interesting so much of the hand wringing in the comments I read here seems to be coming from civilians and not soldiers.

    Comment by patrick — May 27, 2010 @ 11:29 pm - May 27, 2010

  19. Which makes him a real self-loathing idiot,

    Gay leftists frequently call gays who are the slightest bit conservative the same thing. Do you think it’s not hypocritical to call veterans who are the slightest bit liberal the same?

    given how he supported and endorsed John Kerry, who told lies about veterans and smeared all those returning from Vietnam, and how he endorses and supports Nancy Pelosi and her rantings about soldiers being “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    Add to that the fact that, like a good little Pelosi boy, he opposed the Iraq surge and attacked and impugned General Petraeus, and it should be pretty obvious to everyone that he’s an Obama Party puppet first.

    Again, though you may strongly disagree with his views on the war, to argue that all veterans have to be unabashedly pro-war is the same fallacy as saying that all gays have to be unabashedly liberal.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 27, 2010 @ 11:31 pm - May 27, 2010

  20. If you think the American military can’t handle it, then I think you underestimate them.

    LOL….this, coming from the complete antimilitary bigot who calls our troops “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”?

    Our military can handle anything. And the gays and lesbians like Nick who can prioritize their duty over their sexual orientation can handle things quite nicely. Furthermore, we have the luxury of not needing to accept or deal with the gays and lesbians like Serenity into our armed forces.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 11:33 pm - May 27, 2010

  21. Gay leftists frequently call gays who are the slightest bit conservative the same thing. Do you think it’s not hypocritical to call veterans who are the slightest bit liberal the same?

    The difference is this, Ally; being conservative does not automatically make one antigay, nor do I believe being liberal automatically makes one an antimilitary bigot.

    However, Murphy has openly endorsed and supported antimilitary bigots who denigrate veterans and active-duty personnel like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, so it’s really kind of hard to see him as anything else.

    Again, though you may strongly disagree with his views on the war, to argue that all veterans have to be unabashedly pro-war is the same fallacy as saying that all gays have to be unabashedly liberal.

    Oh, I don’t think he has to be pro-war. I just think he needs to stop being an anti-military bigot, as shown by his endorsement of Kerry and Pelosi and their attacks on veterans and serving troops.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 11:38 pm - May 27, 2010

  22. @North Dallas Thirty: What the hell are you on tonight? Amphetamines?

    LOL….this, coming from the complete antimilitary bigot who calls our troops “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”?

    I assume this was directed at me, though you seem to be typing so fast you forgot about blockquotes.

    If so, I’d like a direct quote for your bullshit statement or for you to retract it since I never said anything resembling that about any armed forces and I don’t appreciate being called an ‘antimilitary bigot’ by someone who seems perfectly happy to allow dedicated men and women to be thrown out of the armed forces because they could no longer conceal their sexual identity.

    Our military can handle anything. And the gays and lesbians like Nick who can prioritize their duty over their sexual orientation can handle things quite nicely.

    No they can’t, because due to this website, their sexual orientation is out in the open. Oops.

    Furthermore, we have the luxury of not needing to accept or deal with the gays and lesbians like Serenity into our armed forces.

    You do seem to have forgotten that I’m British in this topic. It happens to me sometimes when I get too deeply involved in a debate. You seem to be drowning in this one.

    Comment by Serenity — May 27, 2010 @ 11:50 pm - May 27, 2010

  23. Meanwhile, NYAlly, I don’t think there is a single person out there who can legitimately be called “pro-war”.

    But there are a LOT of people who realize that, like it or not, war can be a horrid, wicked, awful, disgusting, necessity.

    Several of my cousins are in the military. Not a one of them is antigay. All of them have known people who they suspected might be, but they honor the DA, as they put it, and are fine as long as those people do their jobs. All of them are “anti-war” — inasmuch as they spend a whole lot of time training to do something which they fervently hope they never have to do.

    My concern is that, without DADT, those people won’t. Frankly, a community that can sue a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their wedding cannot be trusted.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 11:53 pm - May 27, 2010

  24. Finally–the default gay man will be a married, churchgoing soldier.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 27, 2010 @ 11:57 pm - May 27, 2010

  25. My concern is that, without DADT, those people won’t. Frankly, a community that can sue a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their wedding cannot be trusted.

    This is what confuses me. You go to great pains to say not a single one is anti-gay and suspect colleagues of being gay, yet you fear they’ll leave if they know they have gay colleagues. Why? What is actually expected to happen, and why aren’t the horror stories you seem to expecting happening in the other NATO nations that allow gays to serve openly?

    You clearly fear something, but you’re going to have to draw everyone else a picture as it seems no one else here gets it.

    Comment by Serenity — May 28, 2010 @ 12:02 am - May 28, 2010

  26. If so, I’d like a direct quote for your bullshit statement

    With pleasure.

    Council members supported the two resolutions-one supporting anti-war protests and the other criticizing military recruitment practices-citing opposition to the war in Iraq, deceptive recruitment practices and the right to protest.

    “By taking a stand against recruitment we are protecting the health and safety of our youth,” said PhoeBe sorgen, a member of the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission. “I see the protest as taking a proud and courageous stand.”

    Code Pink, a national anti-war grassroots organization, will be granted a parking spot for their regular Wednesday afternoon protests and will not need to apply for a sound permit for the next six months, under one resolution.

    The other resolution more directly criticizes the presence of the center in Berkeley. The city manager was directed to send a letter to the U.S. Marine Corps saying they are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in the city.

    And you know what else? The Obama Party says that the military should be abolished.

    And who else endorses and supports the anti-military bigot organization Code Pink?

    That’s right, Barack Obama.

    And that’s what makes this particularly funny.

    someone who seems perfectly happy to allow dedicated men and women to be thrown out of the armed forces because they could no longer conceal their sexual identity.

    Actually, according to you and your fellow liberals and Obama Party members, they’re murderers and baby-killers who should be harassed and hounded out of town as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    You hate the troops, Serenity. You support and endorse the very party, the very “progressive” movement, that spits on them, namecalls them, and was supporting their imprisonment and torture.

    You do seem to have forgotten that I’m British in this topic.

    Oh really? Then how did you vote in the last US election, as you proudly proclaimed you had?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 12:06 am - May 28, 2010

  27. You go to great pains to say not a single one is anti-gay and suspect colleagues of being gay, yet you fear they’ll leave if they know they have gay colleagues.

    Actually, this is what I said:

    All of them have known people who they suspected might be, but they honor the DA, as they put it, and are fine as long as those people do their jobs.

    My concern is that, without DADT, those people won’t.

    My cousins are quite committed to what they do. But frankly, they are talented and smart, so I don’t believe they would or should have to put up with the sort of nonsense that gay and lesbian liberals practice in the workplace.

    Nor do I think they should have to accept into their ranks a community of antimilitary bigots that namecall them as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 12:10 am - May 28, 2010

  28. Never had a problem all those years I served.

    Course, I didn’t play softball.

    Comment by The Ugly American — May 28, 2010 @ 12:14 am - May 28, 2010

  29. What is actually expected to happen, and why aren’t the horror stories you seem to expecting happening in the other NATO nations that allow gays to serve openly?

    I suppose that depends on how you define “horror story”.

    But of course, whether or not a military actually is effective and works well is irrelevant to you, Serenity, given your contempt and hatred for those who serve in the first place.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 12:16 am - May 28, 2010

  30. @North Dallas Thirty: You seem to be confusing me with… well, people who are clearly not me. You said above:

    The difference is this, Ally; being conservative does not automatically make one antigay, nor do I believe being liberal automatically makes one an antimilitary bigot.

    Yet you were clearly lying as you assume me to an anti-military bigot with absolutely no evidence. I don’t care for being tied to statements made by people halfway across the world who I have no connection to and do not agree with. If you have any decency, you will apologise for these remarks.

    Actually, according to you and your fellow liberals and Obama Party members, they’re murderers and baby-killers who should be harassed and hounded out of town as “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”.

    Again, “according to you“. As in me. As in you assign statements calling military personnel carrying out their orders with honour and dignity “murderers and baby-killers”. I have never made such statements and disagree vehemently with anyone who lower political discourse with such disgusting slander.

    You hate the troops, Serenity. You support and endorse the very party, the very “progressive” movement, that spits on them, namecalls them, and was supporting their imprisonment and torture.

    You have no idea who I am and yet you presume to assign disgusting statements made by people I don’t even know to me. Have you no shame?

    Comment by Serenity — May 28, 2010 @ 12:17 am - May 28, 2010

  31. Or it could be the 75% of the public being in favour of repealing DADT.

    So NOW they give a damn about what the American people are for or against? They didn’t give a rat’s ass about the American people when it came to the $786 Billion liberal slush fund.

    They didn’t give a rat’s ass about what the American people thought when it came to destroying their health care.

    They don’t give a damn that millions are unemployed.

    They don’t give a damn that millions are on welfare.

    They don’t give a damn that we’re hemorrhaging red ink like never before.

    They don’t give a damn when we demand they stop wiping their asses with the US Constitution.

    They don’t give a damn when we demand answers on apparent criminal activity in the WH.

    Why the fcuk do they suddenly give a damn about what we have to say on THIS issue? Tell me, Serenity. I’d really like to know. I want some jackass from another country to explain it.

    Oh will you be quiet. Clinton ran on repealing the ban on gays in the military

    The SOBiC ran on cutting spending and eliminating the deficit. So the fcuk what? He, like Clinton are self-serving, lying SOBs who count on people being stupid enough to believe them and shower them with money and votes.

    To hell with both of them and the mindless fucktards who circle the wagons around them.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 28, 2010 @ 2:01 am - May 28, 2010

  32. “My concern is that, without DADT, those people won’t. Frankly, a community that can sue a wedding photographer for refusing to photograph their wedding cannot be trusted.”

    First of all, you are quite the collectivist for a conservative. “The gay community” (headquartered at Gay Community Central maybe? ) didn’t sue a wedding photographer, some people did. Now I don’t believe in private anti-discrimination laws myself, being receptive to the sort of pro-freedom argument Rand Paul made recently before he was more or less attacked from both the right and left wings and retracted it. However, it’s not totally insane to argue that if you have a business you should be legally required to serve all comers, as was the case under the old common law. I don’t agree with that, but I don’t think it puts you in the seventh level of hell to argue the point. Nor is someone evil to attempt to assert his legal rights.

    I’ve read your arguments before. You quite obviously think gay people are inferior to straight people (in general) even though you yourself are queer as a 6 dollar bill. This goes way beyond your dislike of the gay leftish politics embraced by many gays.

    Now you are defending DADT in a blatant display of homophobia (yes, you can be homophobic and like to suck dick) and double standards. Straights can talk about their wives and girlfriends, etc., but gays have to keep their mouths shut. We are in danger of ruining the military. Maybe gay troops will be mass raping guys in the showers, like the religious crackpots think. And please, a few examples of gay misbehavior doesn’t prove a damn thing. I can cite dozens of incidents of straight soldieres raping women, commiting murder, you name it. Your insistance that gays are worse than straights is offensive.

    Frankly , I am tired of heterosexual superiority and I’m floored when a gay man spouts it.

    Comment by Douglas — May 28, 2010 @ 5:55 am - May 28, 2010

  33. Uh-oh. Critz voted against. That was a short orgasm, eh?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 28, 2010 @ 6:21 am - May 28, 2010

  34. OK, at the risk of looking stupid…

    Must… resist… snarky… comment…

    Seriosuly, my only concern about the speed is that the joint chiefs (for Levi gillie and Tano, no, those aren’t the leaders of the legalize Marijuana movement) have come out against, and the military hasn’t done its review.

    I DO think DADT is obsolete, however, I’m NOT a vet, and definately not high up in the chain of command. I do think every American physically and mentally fit to serve should be allowed to enlist, but I am concerned when the joint chiefs are opposed. Maybe they have data I don’t have.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 28, 2010 @ 6:40 am - May 28, 2010

  35. Serenity has taken up the role of presenting us with governance by polling. Here is her “evidence as taken from #1:

    Or it could be the 75% of the public being in favour of repealing DADT. It really is a dream scenario for the Democrats. After months of hearing “Listen to the people!” when it comes to healthcare reform, the Democrats propose repealing DADT, a hugely popular move among the American public.

    When the polling gods speak, the politicians must act. Funny, isn’t it that the polling on nationalized health care keeps going down in approval the more the people learn about the stinker.

    Therefore, engage in hit and run polling and hit and run legislation before the commoners have a chance to think. Ah, sweet government control. Enact first, grab the power and deal with the consequences later.

    By the way, Serenity put the italics to repeal being “a hugely popular move among the American people. How does Serenity know? A poll of about 1200 randomly phoned up Americans says so. Impressive. A great mind at work. Poll it and roll it and put it into law and make Americans eat it. What a plan.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 28, 2010 @ 8:27 am - May 28, 2010

  36. It is good to see that the acceptance of gays during the Bush Years allowed this vote to happen while most Americans now could give a shit about the whole issue.

    Apparently 99% of the GOP Congressmen didn’t get the message. I understand the need for spin on both sides but this is a bit much, Bruce. I listened to a number of speeches on the radio this morning and I’ve got to say that almost all the Republicans made completes asses of themselves on this. There’s still much more work to do on DADT repeal but the news about the House vote was the only bright spot to a VERY lousy day yesterday.

    Your attempt to portray Clinton as an anti-gay bigot is absolutely pathetic and strikes me as an attempt to distract from the obvious fact that whenever opposition to gay rights arises in Congress, it is lead by the Republicans.

    And here’s the spin from the Left. I don’t care whether Clinton was an “anti-gay bigot” or not. The fact remains that he broke his campaign promises and signed into law both DADT and DOMA. Serenity, if you think his expressions of “regret” get him a free pass you’re drinking the Kool Aid just as much as you accuse rank-and-file Republicans of doing.

    GP Ed. Note: Fair enough assessment, John! :)

    Comment by John — May 28, 2010 @ 9:01 am - May 28, 2010

  37. [...] Congress Moves At Speed of Light on DADT Repeal [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Why sudden swift action on DADT repeal? — May 28, 2010 @ 9:51 am - May 28, 2010

  38. Yet you were clearly lying as you assume me to an anti-military bigot with absolutely no evidence. I don’t care for being tied to statements made by people halfway across the world who I have no connection to and do not agree with.

    Which is, of course, why you endorse and support and brag about how you voted for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the Barack Obama Party that made these statements.

    As in you assign statements calling military personnel carrying out their orders with honour and dignity “murderers and baby-killers”. I have never made such statements and disagree vehemently with anyone who lower political discourse with such disgusting slander.

    Which is why, of course, you support, endorse, and brag about your vote for John Kerry, your progressive friends like Hanoi Jane Fonda, and the like who make those statements.

    You missed the main point of the comment, Serenity; it isn’t the fact that you and Patrick Murphy are moonbat liberals that causes the problem, it’s the fact that you endorse, support, and brag about voting for antimilitary bigots.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 11:56 am - May 28, 2010

  39. And please, a few examples of gay misbehavior doesn’t prove a damn thing. I can cite dozens of incidents of straight soldieres raping women, commiting murder, you name it.

    I’m sure you can.

    But I doubt you’ll be able to find examples of the heterosexual community cheering them on and calling anyone who disagrees with them “heterophobic”.

    Hence the difference, Douglas. Heterosexuals don’t have a problem with enforcing the rules against other heterosexuals. For a homosexual to do that is to invite shrieking cries of “self-loathing” and the insistence that gay and lesbian people should put their allegiance to their sexual orientation ahead of everything else.

    Furthermore, why should gay and lesbian people be granted special privileges by being able to sleep with and ogle that to which they are sexually attracted? As commenters elsewhere put it, being in the barracks of opposite-sex individuals without specific invitation and reason is worthy of disciplinary action, mainly because your presence may make people uncomfortable. Why are the rules suddenly different for lesbians and gays?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 12:01 pm - May 28, 2010

  40. @North Dallas Thirty: I’m pretty much done with you here, but I’d like to see your quote of me “brag[ing] about voting for antimilitary bigots”. I think I remember the quote in question, and I’d love to show the world how far you’re stretching to get this.

    Comment by Serenity — May 28, 2010 @ 12:14 pm - May 28, 2010

  41. Spent eight years in the Marines (a very long time ago) 1985 – 1993.

    Repeal of DADT and official acceptance of gays is long overdue.

    being in the barracks of opposite-sex individuals without specific invitation and reason is worthy of disciplinary action

    Being in anyone’s barracks without invitation is un-good. This ‘attraction thing’ ..sure it’s a problem. It will go away with good leadership and discipline.

    I served with a few guys who were gay. Roomed with one. Not a big deal for two mature individuals.

    Comment by Brian Dunbar — May 28, 2010 @ 12:17 pm - May 28, 2010

  42. I’m pretty much done with you here

    Yes, you are done — because, now that you’ve been confronted with examples of the antimilitary bigotry that you support, you can either condemn your Barack Obama, your Nancy Pelosi, and your Obama Party and “progressive” movement for supporting them, or you can run away.

    As usual, you choose the latter.

    I think I remember the quote in question, and I’d love to show the world how far you’re stretching to get this.

    But not, evidently, enough that you would actually go get it yourself.

    Typical lazy welfare gay. Do you think your laziness and demands that other people do your work for you are suitable for a military career? Do you think your demonstration of the fact that “real gays” like yourself are lazy, irresponsible liars helps the gay community? Do you think that gay and lesbian people should get preferential treatment so they can be lazy in the military like you are?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 1:23 pm - May 28, 2010

  43. Yes, you are done — because, now that you’ve been confronted with examples of the antimilitary bigotry that you support, you can either condemn your Barack Obama, your Nancy Pelosi, and your Obama Party and “progressive” movement for supporting them, or you can run away.

    Funny that I watched an interview of the author of “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)”, the ability to ignore flaws in those you consider allies while exaggerating flaws in those you consider enemies, while what you should be doing is trying to objectively measure the flaws in both.

    My point being that you can hate and criticize flaws in allies, while still supporting them on the other issues that you agree with. An option you seem to have missed here when you boil everything down a single issue and say “Support them on everything or cut them off entirely!” as if you can force me to do either.

    So I don’t support the Democrats (seriously, just call them that, I can’t stand to match your childishness here, you ‘win’ on this issue) on everything and I’ve drifted away from them on many issues recently. I certainly don’t support anyone who calls soldiers “murderers” or “baby killers” or anything similar unless the soldiers in question have been judged under the law to have done such acts.

    As usual, you choose the latter.

    I am not scared of you. You are too stupid to pose a real threat to anyone.

    But not, evidently, enough that you would actually go get it yourself.

    To be honest, I don’t remember in which of the many comment threads on this site I made the comment in. That’s not really relevant though since you’re the one that keeps referencing the statement, making it your responsibility to demonstrate that your inferences from it are justified.

    Typical lazy welfare gay. Do you think your laziness and demands that other people do your work for you are suitable for a military career?

    I have no plans to join the military, I don’t think I’m suitable material and never said I was. But your support of DADT implies you don’t think anyone who is gay could possibly be suitable. Again, the implicit insult to the site’s main bloggers is pretty nasty, yet they all see nothing.

    Do you think your demonstration of the fact that “real gays” like yourself are lazy, irresponsible liars helps the gay community?

    Oh the irony, it hurts. You misrepresent my comments, use that misrepresentation to try and tie to the most insane anti-military mobs you can find, refuse to back up any of that with actual quotes from me demonstrating any of it to be true, then call me a “lazy, irresponsible liar” because I try to get you to substantiate your statements.

    Besides, a “real gay” is like a “real straight”. An utterly meaningless label as the variation between two people of the same sexual orientation can be massive.

    Do you think that gay and lesbian people should get preferential treatment so they can be lazy in the military like you are?

    I think anyone who is willing and able to serve, gay or straight, should be able to do so on equal terms without the fear that knowledge of their sexual orientation could end their military career.

    Comment by Serenity — May 28, 2010 @ 6:17 pm - May 28, 2010

  44. Funny that I watched an interview of the author of “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)”, that talked about my the ability to ignore flaws in those you I consider allies while exaggerating flaws in those you I consider enemies, while what you I should be doing is trying to objectively measure the flaws in both.

    Fixed it for you.

    My point being that you can hate and criticize flaws in allies, while still supporting them on the other issues that you agree with.

    Of course you can. But you simply don’t.

    To be honest, I don’t remember in which of the many comment threads on this site I made the comment in.

    So what makes you think you remember the comment?

    But your support of DADT implies you don’t think anyone who is gay could possibly be suitable.

    Which is, of course, in direct contrast to what I stated above.

    Gay people are perfectly capable of serving under DADT. The fact that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people are incapable of doing so has more to do with the irresponsibility and promiscuity that the gay and lesbian community supports, reinforces, and demands rather than any inherent problem based on sexual orientation.

    DADT is necessary because it makes it clear to gays and lesbians that their duty is to the military, not to their sexual orientation. That is completely opposite to what is normal for gay and lesbian people, which is that their sexual orientation must dominate and control all their decisionmaking and that they must protect all other gays and lesbians regardless of how stupid their actions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 28, 2010 @ 10:14 pm - May 28, 2010

  45. Serenity – it’s fun, isn’t it? I can’t decide from one day to the next if ND30 is performance art or the most inept/projecting mindreader in the world, but he never fails to entertain.

    Comment by torrentprime — May 30, 2010 @ 2:31 am - May 30, 2010

  46. The “compromise” on DADT is a total crock of you-know-what. The folks on the Left who support it can only see things through a craven political lens. They see a political victory, albeit a hollow one. What they don’t see is how not having a moratorium on DADT discharges compromises our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan by depriving the military of soldiers with essential skills. They don’t see how the insulting language of the compromise will consign Gay and bisexual soldiers to second-class citizenship indefinitely. They don’t see how compromising on a moral issue leaves you morally suspect. They don’t see that, if you’re a people starving for justice, getting a crumb or two will hardly stave off malnutrition. I am ashamed of SLDN, SU, HRC and all the Gay bloggers who are celebrating passage of the compromise legislation. They’ve left LesBiGay servicemembers hanging out to dry. This close to Memorial Day, there’s something profoundly rotten about that.

    Comment by Stuffed Animal — May 30, 2010 @ 5:28 pm - May 30, 2010

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.399 Powered by Wordpress