I love her new hairdo. A very attractive woman. I am also glad she is speaking out about gays issues. YOU GO GIRL! P.S. Now she is a CLASS act. I hope her daughter ends up more like her than her dad.

Another female trying to tell males in the military who they should shower and sleep with. These women are idiots.
Where are all the pro gay in the military that were jumping up and down when that female judge overturned the policy today.
As I predicted, it would be overturned and it has been.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is refusing to block enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military while a federal appeals court considers the issue.

The court on Friday denied a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the policy violates the civil rights of gay Americans and she issued an injunction barring the Pentagon from applying it. But the San Francisco-based appeals court said the policy could remain in effect while it considers the administration’s appeal.

FIX up of above sentence.

Where are all the pro gay in the military that were jumping up and down when that female judge overturned the policy?.

BlackWidow said:
YOU GO GIRL! P.S. Now she is a CLASS act. I hope her daughter ends up more like her than her dad.

You need to find a new place to spread your ignorance. Why don’t you come out of the closet and use your real name? Are you afraid to man up and be counted?

If Blower had a wife instead of a life partner he would never let her get out of line and publicly disagree with him.

paulmdoro said:
If Blower had a wife instead of a life partner he would never let her get out of line and publicly disagree with him.

And if his life partner knew he was posting on internet message boards using his real name and picture he’d get a whippin too I bet

gordonbloyershow said:
You need to find a new place to spread your ignorance. Why don’t you come out of the closet and use your real name? Are you afraid to man up and be counted?

OH Blower I always thought she was a class act. If I ever said different please find the link and I will take it back.. Hey the Pentagon study is done and they have decided it will not be a problem. You are just a grouchy old man. I do actually spread my ignorance in many other places by the way. Hey Blower I am a 65 year old white woman with a 50 year old man friend that is NOT gay but have many gay friends. OK I am out of the closet. You have really let yourself get old and out of the swing of things.

gordonbloyershow said:
Another female trying to tell males in the military who they should shower and sleep with. These women are idiots.
Where are all the pro gay in the military that were jumping up and down when that female judge overturned the policy today.
As I predicted, it would be overturned and it has been.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is refusing to block enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military while a federal appeals court considers the issue.

The court on Friday denied a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the ongoing federal court review of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this point.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that the policy violates the civil rights of gay Americans and she issued an injunction barring the Pentagon from applying it. But the San Francisco-based appeals court said the policy could remain in effect while it considers the administration’s appeal.

You’re Surprised by the Bush Republican USSC decision? After Florida? The Republicorp USSC is the most tainted injustice in our history. Obviously wouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which Reich Wing side of the coin this would end on. BTW – Explain to you minions why the Republican Chamber of CoNmerce won’t overturn R v. W! Even though they anointed GW Bush and have been working for Corporations since Reagan. Oh, it’s Rhetorical – The Republican USSC (during the 6 years of Bush absolute rule, Executive, Legislative and Judicial) won’t because sheep vote blindly on that issue – consistently for Republicorp.!!

I understand the complaints of Gays that want to serve in the military. It is a career in it of itself and can be used to further a career in the private sector. So being barred is viewed as discriminatory. I can understand this view.

BUT….

In the DADT policy a gay person, man or woman, just about has to openly admit being Gay or be caught in the sexual act with a same sex partner. Even having gay porn does not constitute a violation.

What I haven’t heard from anyone yet is how do you introduce openly gay people in the military smoothly?
Keep in mind, in the military, in many cases I not only work with my squad I often live with them in open dorms with communal bathrooms and showers.

Setting aside DADT. Would a heterosexual female want a heterosexual man she is not currently involved with sharing the same communal bathroom and shower? Probably not! Would that same female want an openly gay female sharing that same shower? Some might, some might not. Same with the guys. Would very many straight guys want to “live” together in a communal environment with openly gay men? Probably not.

So what do you do? Does the military have to provide separate communal accommodations for Gay men and women as they do now for straight men and women? Or do they just house Gay Men and Women together in communal housing? I’d like to be a fly on the wall for a hour or so just to see how that arrangement would work.

I’m not homophobic, but as a civilian I can’t choose who I work with. And yes I do have co-workers who are openly gay and they great employees. I can, however, choose who I live with. In the military a person can not allows choose who they live with or where i.e. communal housing.

Most people in this debate are not addressing the underlining issue here. It is not homophobia. If it is ok for a gay man to live with straight men openly in communal accommodation without their choice why not just have everyone, men and women live together in the same communal accommodations regardless of sexual preference. Because by doing away with DADT they are in part doing this. The military is a hard enough job or career to add to the stress and believe me everyone up the ranks both homosexual, heterosexual, enlisted and officers alike will be stressed.

I’m not in the military any more and won’t be directly effected. But people need to put this debate where it should be. Civilian life style and the rights that come with it are not the same as the life style and the different set of rights (see UCMJ) that come with the military. A large portion of military rules and training are designed to create the greatest possible moral under the greatest possible stress.

So, those of you out there that support getting rid of DADT please tell how you would do this in a practical way.

Just asking…

gordonbloyershow said:
Another female trying to tell males in the military who they should shower and sleep with. These women are idiots.

It took the blowhard all of five minutes to dismiss John McCain’s wife as “these women,” whatever that means. No matter what these reactionaries do or say, they simply cannot hide their sense of entitlement and superiority. No wonder they spend so much time accusing liberals of looking down on them – it’s exactly the way they look at everyone else. Anyone not exactly like the blowhard is lesser than the blowhard, in the mind of the blowhard.

What a sick, unfunny joke the right wing has become.

Liberty_Hound said:
What I haven’t heard from anyone yet is how do you introduce openly gay people in the military smoothly?

They’re already there. There is nothing to change operationally. Wars are not fought differently with gay people. The policy before DADT was a complete ban on homosexuals in the military, but it was almost never enforced. Gays served plenty, and even openly, especially during WWII, but as long as the revelation wasn’t on any official paperwork, nobody cared. DADT was actually worse than the system it replaced, but gays continued to serve. Gays are serving now, and will continue to serve no matter what policy is in place. The only thing that needs to happen is for homophobic straights to get over their own BS and we’re home free. Seriously.

Paul Westlake said:
They’re already there. There is nothing to change operationally. Wars are not fought differently with gay people. The policy before DADT was a complete ban on homosexuals in the military, but it was almost never enforced. Gays served plenty, and even openly, especially during WWII, but as long as the revelation wasn’t on any official paperwork, nobody cared. DADT was actually worse than the system it replaced, but gays continued to serve. Gays are serving now, and will continue to serve no matter what policy is in place. The only thing that needs to happen is for homophobic straights to get over their own BS and we’re home free. Seriously.

So you wave a magic wand and the “homophobic straights” (which make most of the military) get over their own BS. Is this fantasy or reality. Not meant to be sarcastic. Can this be done quickly without major moral and recruitment issue? I’m not saying I know. I’m saying I believe it is much more difficult a task than what people want to admit.

You didn’t really answer the question though… Yes, Gays have always served and I’m actually happy for them. But when have they served openly? That’s a very different distinction.

If they can make this work without a SERIOUS moral issue hitting them in the face then I’m all for letting openly gay people serve. It has been over 25 years since I wore a uniform. Maybe attitudes have changed. But I would not bet on it. The fear among many officers is that it would cut a wedge in our military’s moral. The other “homophobic” fear among higher level officers and perhaps politicians is that down the road the military might become a haven for gays. Now you might say “so what” to this. Well, if that happens they will have to re-institute the draft to get these “homophobes” to serve again. If you think at this time the military can do without them you are wrong. Not that any of these fears would be realized but once down that path it is hard to go back if it doesn’t work out.

Many jobs and living arrangement in the military are conducive to gay life style or any other life style. In some cases the only difference between civilian and military life is in one you have to ware a uniform. But training and operational circumstance are vastly different from civilian life.

I guess DADT will soon be gone and we’ll have the answer to my questions. I hope I’m wrong and I mean that.
But there is a reality out there. It might not be pretty but it is a reality none the less.

Liberty_Hound said:
I guess DADT will soon be gone and we’ll have the answer to my questions. I hope I’m wrong and I mean that.
But there is a reality out there. It might not be pretty but it is a reality none the less.

I never served in the military and I first want to acknowledge and thank you for your service. My service is on the home front as a CPR/BLS certified volunteer firefighter since the age of 18, though my hometown department is far from my current residence and I haven’t had to respond in ages. But I do when I’m back in town.

I don’t mean to direct these comments at you, so please don’t take them as a direct attack of any kind. I’m just sounding out the fullness of the debate as I know it up to this point…

Pretty much every argument against gays serving openly was also used to try to prevent integration of blacks in the armed forces. Yes, it is that simple. All homophobic behavior originates from a juvenile, adolescent attitude that was never properly corrected. Yes, it is incorrect to think of gays any differently than other human beings – they have the same needs and desires, with ONE significant difference, a difference that makes immature people uneasy. It’s not a matter of custom, or culture, or religious beliefs or anything else but a simple matter of maturity in society. People can be as anti-gay as they want at home or church, but our secular society has rules of etiquette for religion and race, why not gays? Every so often, society has to step in to finish the education parents and teachers let slide, and it really is a matter of simply saying it’s unacceptable in society from now on. When enough people are on that side of the equation, all the histrionics will die down and people will go about their business as though nothing ever happened.

It goes that way with big social issues like that all time. Women were once considered property, and the people who argued against enfranchising women said all the same things – morale, disruption to the system, self-disenfranchisement of the previously enfranchised, etc. It’s bunk. And the only people who dream of stuffing that genie back in the bottle are even more immature than simple homophobes. This isn’t a political or even a cultural issue. It’s a maturity issue. When the kids grow up, we’ll put this all past us.

The military is a reflection of society and follows the orders of the civilian government, period. To treat them any differently runs the risk of creating a separate military class in society, which is always a bad thing. We’re already close enough to that as it is with our all-volunteer army. And the “haven for gays” issue is really borderline bigotry on its face. Why would gays need a haven to begin with? Is our society so hostile to them that they need the military to become a haven for them? I think that’s dicey terrain. And on top of that, if the military CAN become a haven for gays, then by that logic, isn’t it a haven for anti-gays today? Neither condition is ideal. But neither condition is likely either.

The military is one of our most important institutions, but it’s not THE most important institution, because there has to be something to fight FOR. Militaries that are allowed to make their own rules start to carve out special places for themselves in society. And militaries that start carving out special places for themselves in society are just a few short steps away from exerting total control. It has happened in democracies before, and it usually starts with cultural wedge issues in bad economies. This is precisely the right time to integrate gays in the military, because it reinforces the relationship between the civilian government and the military brass. It’s the civilian government’s job to decide what the fighting force is, the military’s job to carry out those orders. Truman proved that, sometimes, it really does have to be that simple.

gordonbloyershow said:
FIX up of above sentence.

Where are all the pro gay in the military that were jumping up and down when that female judge overturned the policy?.

Moron, completely brain dead.

BlackWidow said:
OH Blower I always thought she was a class act. If I ever said different please find the link and I will take it back.. Hey the Pentagon study is done and they have decided it will not be a problem. You are just a grouchy old man. I do actually spread my ignorance in many other places by the way. Hey Blower I am a 65 year old white woman with a 50 year old man friend that is NOT gay but have many gay friends. OK I am out of the closet. You have really let yourself get old and out of the swing of things.

Poor old lady, if we could believe anything someone hiding behind a phony name says here. You have done NOTHING except prove my point. You are still a coward hiding behind a phony name.

Paul Westlake said:
I never served in the military

That says it all. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the military should make these decisions. I am for letting them make that decision. They have to live with it not you or some silly female judge that thinks it is cute to see gays marry or men should be forced to shower with openly gay men.
Westlake you need help. You have nothing to say about this subject.

Paul Westlake said:
The military is a reflection of society and follows the orders of the civilian government, period.

The military is not a SOCIAL experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Cindy McCain just sent out a tweet saying she baxks her husbands feelings concerning DADT. Thanksgiving in their house should be fun.

gordonbloyershow said:
The military is not a SOCIAL experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Hey Gordy I saw that youtube video of you that someone posted. Hmmmm sad sad man. You don’t pick on anyone else on here for being in the closet because they don’t use their real name!

gordonbloyershow said:
The military is not a SOCIAL experiment. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Being gay is not a social experiment, Gordon. And again, another example of an argument that was used to perpetuate segregation, women in uniform, let alone combat, among a host of examples of institutionalized prejudices. The experiment is in trying to make the military reflect only a certain type of American, instead of ALL that America has to offer.

Geez, Gordon, if anyone needs help…

I support gays in the military, what I would like to know is why can’t the military make an exception for gays when they make an exception for Sikhs.
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/sikhs-vs-gays-in-the-military/

How the hell to you protect unit cohesion when you allow Sikh soldiers to keep their turbans and their beards? What’s next? Soldiers with piercings?

gordonbloyershow said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.

When were you in the military Gordo? You graduated high school in 1964 when the Vietnam War was going strong. Did you have an anal cyst growing out your neck like Limbaugh? Or did you have better things to do like five defferment Cheney? You have no call to say someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Paul Westlake said:
Being gay is not a social experiment, Gordon. And again, another example of an argument that was used to perpetuate segregation, women in uniform, let alone combat, among a host of examples of institutionalized prejudices. The experiment is in trying to make the military reflect only a certain type of American, instead of ALL that America has to offer.

Geez, Gordon, if anyone needs help…

There’s all sorts of people the military doesn’t let in. Should we drop all barriers to entry into the military?

Pablo said:
There’s all sorts of people the military doesn’t let in. Should we drop all barriers to entry into the military?

Fitness for duty is the main reason people are disqualified from service:

- http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlstandards.htm

Being black isn’t a disqualifying condition in itself, despite what conservatives said in 1948, and being a woman isn’t a disqualifying condition, despite what some conservatives still say, and being gay isn’t a disqualifying condition either, no matter how googly it makes homophobes feel to work next to them. Being homophobic is a much more anti-social condition than being gay, unless the gay person is also heterophobic… which happens, but not nearly as often as homophobia. America is great precisely because we slowly put aside our fears and embrace the huddled masses as our own. The honorable (and American) thing to do is get over “gays in the military,” and instead celebrate a great military (that happens to include gays).

So what if soldiers are uncomfortable with gays? I’m sure some soldiers are uncomfortable with Jews, blacks, Hispanics, whites, etc, etc, etc? It’s the military, not a fucking country club or some stupid college fraternity.

BlackWidow said:
Hey Gordy I saw that youtube video of you that someone posted. Hmmmm sad sad man. You don’t pick on anyone else on here for being in the closet because they don’t use their real name!

Do you read what you write? What does this comment mean? Read my lips, why do you hide behind a phony name? Why are you afraid to stand behind what you say? You are sad and stupid. These ignorant comments trying to intimidate me don’t work, fool.

Paul Westlake said:
Being gay is not a social experiment, Gordon. And again, another example of an argument that was used to perpetuate segregation, women in uniform, let alone combat, among a host of examples of institutionalized prejudices. The experiment is in trying to make the military reflect only a certain type of American, instead of ALL that America has to offer.

The military is not there to “reflect” anything. They are there to protect us. Nobody is required to join and there is NOT a RIGHT to be able to join. There are age and physical restictions. This is not some political correct game. You are a mental midget.

the real john t said:
You graduated high school in 1964

I did not graduate in 1964, dummy. When you get your facts straight someone might pay attention to you. When you use your real name maybe we could check YOUR military record. When did Obama serve? When did that female judge serve? When did Michael Moore serve? When did Jon Stewart or Bill Maher serve? When did Oprah serve? When did Letterman, Leno, Olbermann, Maddow and Ed Shultz serve.

Paul Westlake said:
Being black isn’t a disqualifying condition in itself, despite what conservatives said in 1948, and being a woman isn’t a disqualifying condition, despite what some conservatives still say, and being gay isn’t a disqualifying condition either, no matter how googly it makes homophobes feel to work next to them.

The argument doesn’t suggest that working next to gay people is the problem. It seems to be more about sleeping next to them, showering next to them and the like. It is these reasons that the military segregates men and women in living quarters. Should they stop that?

Pablo said:
The argument doesn’t suggest that working next to gay people is the problem. It seems to be more about sleeping next to them, showering next to them and the like. It is these reasons that the military segregates men and women in living quarters. Should they stop that?

I don’t compliment you enough, but that’s a beautiful strawman you’ve built yourself there.

You argue that the reason the military separates officers by gender is because of impropriety (I assume sexual), implying that there would be impropriety (maybe sexual) if gay and straight officers were sharing private spaces. But as others have already argued, gay and straight officers have been sharing private spaces for years, since long before DADT was even conceived. Inappropriate behavior, sexual or otherwise, between officers of different genders is already solved within established military codes, and the same should apply to all officers, gay or straight.

The problem isn’t the gay and lesbian military personnel. They have, do and will serve the country as honorably as their straight colleagues. The problem is with legislators assuming that straight personnel are unable to serve with openly gay and lesbian officers. And if straight personnel are unable to serve with someone who they don’t understand, there are rules and procedures for that too.

Or maybe the problem is with people not understanding that there is no change in the content of a gay or lesbian person’s character between their being closeted and open, especially if they’ve devoted themselves to the security of the nation and have been trained to follow the same professional guidelines as their fellow straight soldiers.

Here’s my question. Isn’t it odd that there are soldiers who feel “uncomfortable” with sharing a shower with a gay man or sharing a bunk with a gay man, and yet these soldiers put their lives on the line and train for situations in which they may or may not get shot at? The military isn’t supposed to make soldiers feel “comfortable”. It teaches discipline, and discipline includes sucking it up and serving with soldiers who happen to be gay and who want to serve their country just as honorably as the straight soldiers.

As has been pointed out before, there are already gay people in the military. Does coming out as gay mean that they are automatically going to be flamboyant and sexually aggressive?

I can see it now:

“Man, I needed this shower. By the way, I’m gay. WHOO! That’s a relief! Now I’m going to touch you and be sexually aggressive with you!”

gordonbloyershow said:
The military is not there to “reflect” anything. They are there to protect us. Nobody is required to join and there is NOT a RIGHT to be able to join. There are age and physical restictions. This is not some political correct game. You are a mental midget.

Nobody does “mental midget” like you do, blowhard. You make notsoswift look like Updike!

We’re all well aware of strict fitness requirements for military service. And in that department, gay people generally have straight people beat anyway. You know those guys spend like six hours a day at the gym, not mugging for each other, but actually working out. You versus the average gay dude on Christopher Street is no contest – he would tear you half with his bare hands. So, you’re right, this is NOT some “political correct game,” which ignoring the immensely qualifying attributes of an entire segment of society REALLY is. Being homophobic IS the “political correct game,” because it ignores reality in favor of “feelings.” Which brings us back to stoogedudes’s perfect point…

stoogedudes said:
The military isn’t supposed to make soldiers feel “comfortable”. It teaches discipline, and discipline includes sucking it up and serving with soldiers who happen to be gay and who want to serve their country just as honorably as the straight soldiers.

They had to suck it up and serve with blacks. They had to suck it up and serve with women. Now they can serve with gays. Or they can quit.

blurgh. said:
You argue that the reason the military separates officers by gender is because of impropriety

Did I say that? I don’t believe I did. Where did I say that?

If I were you, I would not be talking about strawmen while you’re stuffing one. What branch of the military were you in?

Pablo said:
Did I say that? I don’t believe I did. Where did I say that?

You implied it when you mentioned sleeping and showering “and the like.” Why else would there be a problem? Do you think the lesbian soldier has never seen a naked woman before? You know, like every day her entire life? You think the gay dude is infiltrating the men’s shower and staring at ass like a 14-year old with a pair of binoculars? You think straight men would argue if they were ordered to shower with the women? Do you think straight women would rather shower with a few straight men or a few gay women? Which one of those two groups do you think is more likely to try to get laid in that scenario? What do you think the chances are that a straight male soldier will be raped by a gay male soldier in the shower or in the barracks?

There is no answer you can give that doesn’t amount to wasting the benefit and expense of training certain highly qualified and competent soldiers to accommodate the feeling that they give homophobes the cooties.

Paul Westlake said:
You implied it when you mentioned sleeping and showering “and the like.”

Just because you touch yourself while you’re sleeping, showering and the like, doesn’t mean that I think of impropriety when I think of those things. It’s a matter of privacy and of maintaining order. It’s the same reason TSA uses same sex screeners.

Do you think the lesbian soldier has never seen a naked woman before?

I think that’s a pretty basic component of lesbianism. You, I’m not so sure about.

You think the gay dude is infiltrating the men’s shower and staring at ass like a 14-year old with a pair of binoculars?

You think if he thinks a guy is hot, he’s not gonna look? And perhaps sprout some wood? And you think that won’t cause any problems? What branch did you serve in?

Do you think straight women would rather shower with a few straight men or a few gay women?

I think their first choice would be to shower alone. Second would be with other straight women. Most women I know would not be pleased with the idea of having to shower with men they’re not intimate with.

What do you think the chances are that a straight male soldier will be raped by a gay male soldier in the shower or in the barracks?

Who said anything about rape? What do you think the chances are of a guy walking into his barracks room and finding his gay roommate taking it in the ass? And what do you think the odds are of that causing problems with maintaining order?

There is no answer you can give that doesn’t amount to wasting the benefit and expense of training certain highly qualified and competent soldiers to accommodate the feeling that they give homophobes the cooties.

For 17 years that answer has been DADT. But thank you General Westlake for offering your deep insight into military culture.

Pablo said:
Just because you touch yourself…

When you start with a comment like that, everything that comes after it is crap. Everything. But let me demonstrate…

Pablo said:
It’s a matter of privacy and of maintaining order.

How is order disrupted by a gay in the showers? Oh, because YOUR feelings are more important than military readiness.

Pablo said:
I think that’s a pretty basic component of lesbianism.

So, until a woman saw another woman naked, she had no idea what naked women looked like? Are you high?

Pablo said:
You, I’m not so sure about.

Keep up the personal insults, it just digs your hole even deeper.

Pablo said:
You think if he thinks a guy is hot, he’s not gonna look?

You think discipline is a fucking joke in the military?

Pablo said:
And perhaps sprout some wood?

THERE it is! Pablo is afraid of seeing a boner, so the military has to be reduced in effectiveness and readiness because all the Pablos in the military are terrified of seeing a boner… meanwhile, half the straight guys in the barracks beat their meat every night and that’s just fine. Maybe you should start a circle jerk… I bet you’d like it more than you care to admit.

Pablo said:
Most women I know would not be pleased with the idea of having to shower with men they’re not intimate with.

Almost NO women would be comfortable with a strange naked man in the shower…. and the one’s that are, are paid. And none of this is about lesbians anyway – most straight men LOVE the idea of two women in the sack. It’s gay male sex that wierds them out – and mostly because they’re gay themselves, or at least bi, and are totally self-deluded. This is NOT a secret anymore. LOL

Pablo said:
Who said anything about rape?

Exactly. It’s not the fact that women are routinely raped by straight men in the military that’s the problem, it’s gays. Sure it is…

- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshall30jan30,0,510658.story

Remember tailhook?

- http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-04/news/mn-46396_1

Pablo said:
What do you think the chances are of a guy walking into his barracks room and finding his gay roommate taking it in the ass? And what do you think the odds are of that causing problems with maintaining order?

Zero, if base discipline is maintained. Nor is it likely you’ll walk into the barracks and find a straight couple having sex either, if base discipline is maintained. The military isn’t here for sex, it’s here to fight. And the notion that gays can’t serve is based on the notion that they can’t control their own behavior. If any group has demonstrated a lack of self-discipline, it’s straight, male soldiers – not women, and not gays.

Pablo said:
For 17 years that answer has been DADT.

And for 17 years it has been an abject failure. And you spent a lot more time insulting me and excusing juvenile attitudes than proving any points. You can try again, but I’ll just keep beating your ass until you either get it or shut up. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
When you start with a comment like that, everything that comes after it is crap. Everything. But let me demonstrate…

When I start a comment talking to you, everything else is a waste of time. What branch did you serve in?

How is order disrupted by a gay in the showers? Oh, because YOUR feelings are more important than military readiness.

My feelings have nothing to do with it. I’m talking about two soldiers in the shower looking at each other and one of them has a naughty smile and a boner. What branch did you serve in?

So, until a woman saw another woman naked, she had no idea what naked women looked like? Are you high?

No, but I suspect you might be. I have no idea what this response is supposed to mean. I simply said that seeing women naked is a basic component of lesbianism. What branch did you serve in?

Keep up the personal insults, it just digs your hole even deeper.

It’s the one part of this waste of time that makes it sort of fun. You’re not going to take that from me. What branch did you serve in?

You think discipline is a fucking joke in the military?

No, I think you have no idea what military discipline is about. I can assure you that it has nothing to do with tolerating various sexual proclivities. What branch did you serve in?

THERE it is! Pablo is afraid of seeing a boner, so the military has to be reduced in effectiveness and readiness because all the Pablos in the military are terrified of seeing a boner… meanwhile, half the straight guys in the barracks beat their meat every night and that’s just fine. Maybe you should start a circle jerk… I bet you’d like it more than you care to admit.

What branch did you serve in?

Almost NO women would be comfortable with a strange naked man in the shower…. and the one’s that are, are paid. And none of this is about lesbians anyway – most straight men LOVE the idea of two women in the sack. It’s gay male sex that wierds them out – and mostly because they’re gay themselves, or at least bi, and are totally self-deluded. This is NOT a secret anymore. LOL

Splendid. What branch did you serve in?

Exactly. It’s not the fact that women are routinely raped by straight men in the military that’s the problem, it’s gays. Sure it is…

- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-marshall30jan30,0,510658.story

Remember tailhook?

- http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-04/news/mn-46396_1

Dorothy, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion are looking for you. They said something about you being back where you belong.

Seriously, do you really think that heterosexual rape is an argument for the repeal of DADT?

Zero, if base discipline is maintained. Nor is it likely you’ll walk into the barracks and find a straight couple having sex either, if base discipline is maintained.

Have you ever been on a military base? You have no idea what you’re talking about. Do you know who the people who live in barracks are? What branch did you serve in?

And for 17 years it has been an abject failure.

Wait, weren’t we just talking about the gays serving honorably in the military, where DADT has been the rule for 17 years? How does that make it an abject failure? What branch did you serve in?

Pablo, you comment anonymously, so you can make any claim you want, but there’s no way to verify anything you say. So asking what branch you served in is a waste of time, because it’s obvious that you can make any claim you want but you won’t back it up with anything. So your juvenile “what branch did you serve in” gambit is dead on arrival. And your repetitive, paranoid assertions about gays in the military are as juvenile as ever. But this is really the best right here…

Pablo said:
Wait, weren’t we just talking about the gays serving honorably in the military, where DADT has been the rule for 17 years? How does that make it an abject failure?

Gays were serving before DADT came along and will be serving after. The difference is that otherwise well-qualified and honorable people were expelled from the military in larger numbers under DADT than they had been previously, depriving the military, and thus the American people, of the services of outstanding military personnel for a reason that has nothing to do with fitness for duty, that has never been demonstrated to be a morale issue, and that is seen as a total non-issue by a majority of those currently serving in uniform. That qualifies as an abject failure.

Paul Westlake said:
Pablo, you comment anonymously, so you can make any claim you want, but there’s no way to verify anything you say. So asking what branch you served in is a waste of time, because it’s obvious that you can make any claim you want but you won’t back it up with anything. So your juvenile “what branch did you serve in” gambit is dead on arrival. And your repetitive, paranoid assertions about gays in the military are as juvenile as ever. But this is really the best right here…

I’m simply wondering if you have any experience with military life. I suspect you don’t, and asinine statements like the one that declares that people don’t fuck in the barracks (on the good disciplined bases!) confirm my suspicion. What branch did you serve in?

Gays were serving before DADT came along and will be serving after.

Yup, they sure were.

The difference is that otherwise well-qualified and honorable people were expelled from the military in larger numbers under DADT than they had been previously, depriving the military, and thus the American people, of the services of outstanding military personnel for a reason that has nothing to do with fitness for duty, that has never been demonstrated to be a morale issue, and that is seen as a total non-issue by a majority of those currently serving in uniform. That qualifies as an abject failure.

OK, so your 5 unfounded assumptions make for abject failure? I don’t think so, Paul.