The military is not the place for twisted liberal social experiments. You already have the public school system..and California.

Whether it is the Boy Scouts or the Military, the Gays seem to want to be where young males tend to take public showers.

I generally have no patience for this kinda crap. First off, ranger and Moderate, you two are bigoted idiots. Gays are already in the military, straight soldiers are fine, DADT bans openly gay Americans from serving. So essentially, you two are twats (Or c***s, doesn’t matter). Second, I wonder if the right-wing will take the oh so ironic position of blasting Obama for this position, despite the fact that most right-wing Americans like the law. I’m sure they will.

Me1ranger is so right. The military should continue kicking out skilled Arabic translators because they’re gay, which will happily lead to even greater miscommunication and hatred wherever in the Middle East our troops are stationed. And let’s hear it for a few more troop rotations and deployments. Speed ‘em up, in fact. Why let the allegedly all-straight, overworked military go home at all? So what if the record-breaking suicide rate among enlisted men and women continues to grow due to the frequency of redeployments? Big deal! Yeah, guys, let’s keep the homophobic bigotry alive and well in the military so that our overextended troops can completely fall apart at the seams. Who cares if 78% of the population favors the ending of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (according to a recent CNN poll). Who said this is a democracy??? Let the homophobic 22% like me1ranger run the show!

And check it out for yourself!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/99689-poll-78-percent-favor-repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell
and
http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/05/12/us-military-besieged-record-suicide-rate

I had no problems with the Gays that did not make it obvious, it was the guy that was always hanging out in the latrine and ogling at people in the showers. When everyone started complaining, it turned out he was transfered into our unit because he had the same problem with his previous assignment. As the complaints continued, the Air Force discharged him.

Moderate, you never even fecking served, stop making bullshit up. Seriously. Your comments show it is bloody obvious you have no understanding of people who are serving, so please cut the crap.

Bob..why so angry? Worked a double shift in the fudge packing factory? You pro-gay libs want to let the football team shower with the cheerleaders too? What do you know about how the military thinks? And you can shove your arab linguists up your ass..judging from your post, they’d fit. Thanks..

I would guess you are the one that never served but would “love” it.

Give it up moderate..this site has gone to hell. Snipzor is a low life for doubting your service. Let these freaks have this place..it’s doomed.

Snipzor, there were very few liberals serving in the Military therefore few Gays, they do not handle the structured lifestyle very well.

Twisted liberal social experiments? Are you freaking kidding me? Give me a freaking break. Gays in the military would be a benefit to us all. There are many who are highly trained, and to be fired for being gay…it’s despicable. Gays are already in the military, yet they are closeted. If tomorrow, they out themselves…what’s going to change? Is the fact that it is known that a person is gay make that person more likely to rape someone? Why do people assume that gays are these extremely sexually aggressive creatures?

Soldiers are training for war. They are preparing for instances of battle. And yet knowing that gay people are serving with them makes our soldiers make them feel awkward? I thought the military taught discipline. I’m not one think those against gay marriage are bigoted and homophobic, but I am one to think that soldiers who refuse to serve with someone who is gay because they are afraid that they are going to be oogled in the shower just might be bigoted and homophobic. I know our military are honorable people and I would like to think they would be able to tolerate their homosexual brothers and sisters serving with them.

It’s 2010. Let’s get out of the mindset that it’s 1910.

Moderate, everytime I talk to people who have been in Iraq or Afghanistan (Generally in Afghanistan because I live in Canada), they always tell me that people on your side of the argument are full of shit. Y’know how they know? Because we don’t have a backwards bigoted law like yours. We don’t ban openly gay men or women from serving, because we’re not a nation of 6 year olds.

Me1ranger, is everyone who disagrees with you “angry”? I don’t think so. Sounds like you’re the one who is angry, really angry, with comments like, “Worked a double shift in the fudge packing factory?” Don’t worry. I don’t think anyone would want to pack your fudge or the fudge of the troll that calls itself “Moderate.” Too bad you’re a dying breed and in a few decades, your kind will be ancient history. There have been gays serving in the military since Alexander the Great. So just get over it. History is against you, as is 78% of our population.

P.S. In case you didn’t know, our military is already serving with openly gay military from other countries.

damn…a soon as i thought somethin was gonna get done….but yea we should def cut back on the military a spending

lets send ranger to the military….he’ll be real comfortable next to larry craig and ted haggard.

moderate ..u gotta be kidding…most combat soldiers voted for obama…..most americans voted for obama….im sure you consider him a liberal

“but yea we should def cut back on the military a spending” youngwayne22

The Military does not need more C-17′s. The parts are manufactured in many different Congressional Districts, therefore in order to “bring home the bacon” Congress is going to force the planes on the Military. It is a sad day when Military Strategy is determined by your friendly Congressman wanting jobs in his district. Manufacturers have caught on and try to have parts made all over the country.

PS Eric Massa (D- gay) would be rejoining the Navy so he could “snorkel” his roommates.

“most americans voted for obama….im sure you consider him a liberal”

With Obama trying to please the extreme left, his favorability has dropped like a rock. I hope your English skills improve once you get into High School.

Really? He is trying to please the extreme left? What about the public option and his lack of support for it? What about his mentioning that he supports civil unions and not gay marriage (which I believe he said that to appease some Republicans so they would vote for him)? What about his approval of drilling in the Gulf? What about his pussyfooting around on DADT to begin with?

One of the reasons why the left is so angry with him is because he seems to be moving to the right and not thinking about progressive causes.

If Obama had been more to the left, his favorability would be higher, because he would have the support of more progressives.

That pretty well sums it up, stoogedudes. Right on!

And then there’s the expansion of the war in Afghanistan with no end in sight and no real plan to exit. Or the war in Iraq, which is still going strong, and will still be going on next year, as the economy continues to gasp from the unbelievable expense. And I believe Gitmo is still open, despite Obama’s promises. But I guess when someone like the alleged “Moderate” gets all his news from Fox or Limbaugh, he believes the BS about Obama being such an extremist commie.

stoogedudes says:
June 20, 2010 at 6:46 pm

If Obama had been more to the left, his favorability would be higher, because he would have the support of more progressives.

If that’s true… then who do the progressives support? Who is their leader?

Bob Amsel says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:11 pm

Wow… so rigid, Bob! If Obama doesn’t do absolutely everything that the left-wing wants him to do… he’s not a member?! Wow! Where’s that big tent we’re always hearing about?

“Where’s that big tent we’re always hearing about?”

And again, confusing party with ideology. Please, learn the god damned difference before you actually talk about politics, because if you can’t remember the most basic fact that a political party is not an ideology, then you probably don’t know much about politics to begin with. Plus both parties use the big tent claim, so cram it.

Snipzor says:
June 20, 2010 at 7:58 pm

And again, confusing party with ideology.

So you’re saying that the Democrats don’t have an ideology… and the Progressives don’t have a party?

Please… explain this to me.

Plus both parties use the big tent claim, so cram it.

Nice dodge. I guess because both parties use it, it’s okay for the Democrats and Progressives not to really mean it?

But I’ll ask again… who is the Progressive “ideology” leader?

To ImNotBlue:

I’m sure you’re a decent person, but you truly have serious mental issues OR you’re taking some very serious drugs. You are continually making assumptions regarding what other people supposedly mean or supposedly are thinking, rather than what they actually write. I’ve written about this repeatedly before, and you’re STILL doing it. What exactly did I write at 7:11 p.m that elicits the following response from you because you truly have fallen down the rabbit hole and don’t know it:

“Wow… so rigid, Bob! (About what exactly???) If Obama doesn’t do absolutely everything that the left-wing wants him to do… he’s not a member?! (Who is making this claim? Not me. I guess YOU ARE!!! Obama isn’t and probably never has been very liberal, except in the minds of right-wing pundits, right-wing talk-show hosts, Fox News, and the audiences who watch and listen to them religiously. So what is the point of your statement?) Wow! Where’s that big tent we’re always hearing about?” (Excuse me, but did I write anything about a big tent???? If not, why are you writing to me as if I did? Huh???)

Bob Amsel says:
June 20, 2010 at 11:28 pm

I’m sure you’re a decent person,

Comments such as this, are often followed by a ridiculous insult.

…but you truly have serious mental issues OR you’re taking some very serious drugs.

See.

Ugh.

You are continually making assumptions regarding what other people supposedly mean or supposedly are thinking, rather than what they actually write. I’ve written about this repeatedly before, and you’re STILL doing it. What exactly did I write at 7:11 p.m that elicits the following response from you because you truly have fallen down the rabbit hole and don’t know it:

Hmmm… apparently I’m the only one reading your comments. If you don’t understand my comment, reread yours, and you’ll find the solution.

“Wow… so rigid, Bob! (About what exactly???)

You added onto Stooges list of things Obama would have needed to accomplish to make him a “progressive.” In other words, you have provided a set of standards and goal, which failing to complete means he’s “not one of the team.” Get it? Apparently, for Obama to be a “progressive,” he has to fit your checklist to a T… otherwise, he’s not allow to play. Get it?

If Obama doesn’t do absolutely everything that the left-wing wants him to do… he’s not a member?! (Who is making this claim? Not me. I guess YOU ARE!!!

Did you not say this, “That pretty well sums it up, stoogedudes. Right on!”?

Stooge was providing reasons why Obama isn’t “trying to please the extreme left.” You said you agreed, and provided more reasons why he’s not “one of them” (as the discussion above indicates).

This is all fairly obvious and “connect the dots” type stuff. I think the problem is you don’t like the conclusions to the situations you’ve provided… so instead of revising your position, you blame me for “misunderstanding” what you wrote.

Obama isn’t and probably never has been very liberal, except in the minds of right-wing pundits, right-wing talk-show hosts, Fox News, and the audiences who watch and listen to them religiously. So what is the point of your statement?)

Yet again, political placement depends greatly on where you stand. To the right… Obama is very far left. To the very far left, he’s not that far. However, simply because you’re very far left, doesn’t mean Obama isn’t far left.

To be clear… no, he’s not “communist left” or even “true socialist left.” He’s far left enough to think that “spreading the wealth” is a good idea… but enough of a politician to realize he can’t just do whatever it is he wants, he’s got to compromise to get things farther over to where he wants them to be. Even he has admitted that his “public option” plan is the first step towards government run healthcare. He’s more realistic far left… which means he knows that on some things he’s got to take baby steps if he wants to achieve the overall goal. He’s not the dictator you think the President should be.

Wow! Where’s that big tent we’re always hearing about?” (Excuse me, but did I write anything about a big tent???? If not, why are you writing to me as if I did? Huh???)

Did I say YOU said it? Nope.

But are you denying that the left and the Democrats have said time and time again that they’re a “big tent” party… they allow people from all different opinions in. But apparently, you don’t believe that. As I said, you gave a list of qualifiers.

Sorry Bob. My conclusions are based upon the things you’ve said. You may not like to hear your ideas repeated back to you… but that’s not really my problem. Perhaps it’s you who needs to rethink things. I’m just exploring what you’ve already said.

If the conservatives here are worried about our gays serving openly, imagine how the poor ultra-conservative Taliban must feel. Knowing that our army that is about to allow openly gay soldiers has got to freak them out. When they controlled Afghanistan, homosexuality was a crime punishable by death.

Ahhhhhhhh, I can see that this is another group that needs a nurse. I am VERY worried about the general overall health of all, but especially those who cannot seem to express themselves without slipping (head long) into a haranguing rant. You are all too young to stroke out over “”Wales”" (if you have not seen or read Man For All Seasons, just skip it) To make the situation more critical, these same folkis seem to be trapped in a mind-warp of limited vocabullary.

It is obvious that hateful discourse seems to be the medium they are most comfortable. Even more surprising it spews from those who demand äcceptance for all……(would that be äll” who think lockstep with them? Sillly me, I must have missread the perpetually negative tone and gutter language….my bad, I think I’ll hummm a little “Can you feel the love tonight…..”)

Medical intervention is needed here. Breathe deep, go to a happy place in your tormented minds, count your blessings. Lay down for a while, put a cool cloth on your head. If all that fails, I will lastly suggest the never-fail Rx for this illness…..
You need to schedule a visit with your usual GP, share with him your irrational behavior and most importantlly, ask for a high colonic. It may clear your minds…….maybe even your mouths…. but don’t set expectations so high that you have a relasps if the result is not what we would all hope for. Until such time as you become better acquainted with honorable behavior and truth, may the force be with you!!!.

From Wikipedia:

“Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of sexual orientations other than heterosexual (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, Russia) permit gay people to serve openly, and two (United States, China) do not. Besides Greece, which bans homosexuals from serving, all other members of EU permit gay people to serve openly. The Greek discrimination policy has become the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[70] The Canadian Forces lifted the ban on gay members in 1992. (See LGBT policy in the Canadian military.) In 2009, Argentina, Uruguay[71] and Philippines allowed gay men to serve openly in the military.[70] Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation, including special units.[72] Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, stated, “It’s a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time.”[73]”

The “Land of the Free” needs to catch up with the rest of the world.

Just change the policy to : “Don’t ask, Don’t bend over.”

To cowboyneck:

Thank you very much for that information. I said pretty much the same thing above but without the actual specifics.

To ImNotBlue:

You’re making me blue. I’m sorry I can’t even attempt to respond to your continual assertions of what I’m thinking or accepting or not accepting or what I want Obama to be or what I don’t want Obama to be or whether he’s on my team or he’s not. You may take my statements at face value, but if you wish to do your bizarre interpretations, you may do so, but don’t expect any further response from me. Why don’t you just stick to your OWN opinion of a subject — in this case, an article involving the current politics of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” instead of imaginatively reinterpreting the words of others?

However, you did ask stoogedudes one question that was fair and that interested me?: “… who do the progressives support? Who is their leader?” First of all, we would support Obama if he were running against ANY Republican in the next presidential election. Yes, even a corporate Democrat is preferable to a Republican. (You might compare this to the many people who voted for John McCain even though he was not their first choice for a number of reasons.) I don’t think there is any specific progressive leader. There are many politicians I personally admire, including Howard Dean, Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, and Bernie Sanders for starters. I really think there should be the same type of term limits on Congress that there is on the presidency. I find Congress extremely corrupt and not only on the Republican side of the aisle. That is the only way of creating a Congress where special interests don’t make the laws.

Until the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy, discovered homosexuals were summarily discharged from the United States’ military service. Some military leaders, politicians, and religious groups continue to support legislation to remove all homosexuals from military service. None of these groups dispute the right of homophobes to be in the military. Yet, homophobes can threaten military discipline, good order, and preparedness. Homophobes, whether heterosexual or homosexual, often have clinically relevant depression, paranoia, or other mental illness adverse to military performance and mission effectiveness. There is no evidence from research homosexuals should be removed from military service.
The ban on homosexuals appears to be an extension of the military’s differential treatment of females. In Australia lesbians are more prevalent among female military personnel (>30%) than male homosexuals among male military personnel. Effeminate males and masculinized females, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are the likely targets of military investigations. In fact, the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy does not appear to have reduced the numbers of “homosexual discharges” or the number of homosexual witch-hunts. Although military officials have postulated military personnel are particularly offended by homosexuality, research does not bear out such opinion.
Arguments that open homosexuals in the ranks will lead to a compromise in the United States’ defense posture, exorbitant personnel expenditures, civilian distrust of military leadership, disruption in the ranks, wholesale retirement or resignation of key personnel, etc. are unfounded. Homosexuals, who enter military service, even under the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy, must be highly motivated to realize a fulfilling military career. Pentagon and independent research shows sexual orientation expression is the only difference to be found between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Sexual orientation does not significantly influence loyalty, performance, ability, community service, and dedication to high ideals. In allied countries, where homosexuals are accepted in the armed services, the uproar predicted by dogmatic military leaders did not occur.
Heterosexuals entering military service are aware that homosexuals are in the military and homosexuals entering military service know they may face negative reactions from undisciplined, unprofessional, and homophobic bigots–homosexual and heterosexual. While some homosexuals and heterosexuals display socially inappropriate public displays of sexual or affectionate behavior, those who desire a military career are unlikely to engage in such behavior.
Many legal issues are raised by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The call for differential treatment of “open” and “closeted” homosexuals challenges the rights to free expression, association, and privacy and may inculcate prejudice. Only through contact and understanding can we raze the walls of hatred and bigotry. In summer, 1999, the Department of Defense initiated a plan that would put the investigation of homosexuals in the hands of senior Judge Advocate General officers and have all military personnel take sensitivity training to reduce or eliminate sexual orientation harassment. Based on scientific materials presented to an Air Force Board, in the early 1970′s at McChord AFB in Washington State, a homosexual male was asked to remain in the service to help others in their acceptance of homosexuals. Some military officers can come ro rational decisions not weighted with propaganda or bigotry. Based on a number of factors, the airman chose to be honorably discharged from the military.

To notsofast:

Troll, you could bend over all day and all night with no fear whatsoever.

To murphy0071:

Thank you for that very thoughtful and rational explanation and brief history, something definitely needed at Mediaite.