Colby:

Barney Frank is not the first openly gay member of Congress. Gerry Studds was.

Uh oh…short guys can serve as long as they fulfill the necessary requirements.

Everybody wants to be 6′ 2″…however…I am tall.

There are more than certain limits my height does not allow me to participate.

Perhaps I should complain because I am slightly taller than others.

You join up…you acknowledge the rules. My eyesight is less than 20/10.

I can’t fly.

If I’m less than a height requirement…I shouldn’t put my cohorts in harms way.

Doesn’t mean there isn’t a job for me.

If I’m over-weight or to tall; same thing. Or too old!

If I am too short or I am too old and I cannot perform the required obstacles….I fail.

“running against the legendary Barney Frank (D -MA)” Colby Hall

Legendary? As in legendary for making the poor of America live in conditions reminiscent of the old Soviet Union? Got it.

[Public housing in] New York City, …has a three-year backlog of repair requests.

In response, HUD has drafted legislation that would allow housing agencies to borrow public and private money, using their land and buildings as equity, to finance repairs. Money received annually from Congress would be used to repay the debt over time.

But the proposed legislation, currently being reworked, met stiff opposition at a Congressional hearing in May.
“I agree we need more capital funding,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, which held the hearing. “But putting a private mortgage on public housing is not a good idea.”

Meanwhile, tenants of New York’s public housing say repair delays have never been worse, a belief borne out by figures from the New York City Housing Authority. It already has 106,000 unfulfilled work orders, 9,000 of which are scheduled for 2012 and an additional 300 already for 2013….

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/nyregion/25repairs.html?_r=1

exactly, some people are too gay to serve in the military, some are too womanish to vote, and others are too black to ride in the front of the bus.

Why do job requirements predicate stereotypes?

exactly, some people are too gay to serve in the military, some are too womanish to vote, and others are too black to ride in the front of the bus.

People with bad eyesight shouldn’t be involved with intricate detail.
The job should not cater to the applicant.

Being gay has nothing to do with my point…being short, myopic, old, tall or fat does.

It’s just another reason someone can’t serve, what’s wrong with that? I have a health condition that makes it impossible for me to serve(Army and Air Force told me).

And just wondering, was it the surviving the prostitution ring run out of his apartment that made him famous? Or overseeing, and causing, the financial meltdown that we’re currently going through that made Frank legendary? Or was it just that all of his excuses successfully revolve around him being gay?

It’s just another reason someone can’t serve, what’s wrong with that? I have a health condition that makes it impossible for me to serve(Army and Air Force told me).

The job requires something you can’t do.
I have no problems with gays in the military and DADT was a huge mistake.

The military has to revamp their acceptance requirements…and that won’t be easy.

lazzzlo said:
The military has to revamp their acceptance requirements…and that won’t be easy.

Why? If its to accomodate the gay people thats silly beacuse gays have been serving their country a very long time.

Because*

SnowSoul said:
It’s just another reason someone can’t serve, what’s wrong with that? I have a health condition that makes it impossible for me to serve(Army and Air Force told me).

The issue is whether or not being gay is a valid reason for not allowing someone to serve. A lot of people (myself included) believe that it is not, and that having openly gay service members poses no threat to our military.

lazzzlo said:
The job requires something you can’t do.
I have no problems with gays in the military and DADT was a huge mistake.

The military has to revamp their acceptance requirements…and that won’t be easy.

And what about gays serving? That may require them to do something they cannot do: follow orders. As I understand it, you don’t ask, and if asked, you don’t tell. How hard is it to accomplish that? I assume not advertising your sexuality like a play on broadway would be understandable. After all, there’s that ROTC lady who outed herself after she had gotten the scholarship and training. I wouldn’t imagine it’d be much harder.

ROCKSTEADY said:
Why? If its to accomodate the gay people thats silly beacuse gays have been serving their country a very long time.

And you just proved the ignorance that surrounds this issue amongst those who so fervently push for it’s repeal. Go educate yourself. There’s a poll out, about a year or so old, stating a majority of those in the military would leave or seriously consider it if it was repealed. On top of that, men and women have separate bunks for a reason. I won’t get into the details as I’m sure your parents once told you of the birds and the bees(Or some teacher with a banana and a condom).

If that was too complicated to grasp as a problem before being explained to you, then continuing would be futile.

SnowSoul said:
Go educate yourself. There’s a poll out, about a year or so old, stating a majority of those in the military would leave or seriously consider it if it was repealed.

That’s BS. Maybe it’s you that need to educate yourself. A person just can’t leave the military until his/her term is up which a lot of them do know and have done. I doubt it will hurt the military.

the real john t said:
That’s BS. Maybe it’s you that need to educate yourself. A person just can’t leave the military until his/her term is up which a lot of them do know and have done. I doubt it will hurt the military.

Clearly, you don’t know what implications are. It is implied that they would leave when their term is up. Wait – am I really having an argument with someone this stupid? Apparently. Sorry, I’ll excuse myself from this.

SnowSoul said:
Apparently. Sorry, I’ll excuse myself from this.

Yeah you’d better. Because you don’t have a clue as to what your talking about. You come up with some poll from a year ago that you can’t prove was even taken. You just pulled that out of your Repubican place (your ass).

BTW SnowSoul, was your health condition the same as Limbaughs, you had an anal cyst growing out the top of your neck?

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t those that chose to serve voluntarily choose to aide by laws.

No one was drafted.

the real john t said:
Yeah you’d better. Because you don’t have a clue as to what your talking about. You come up with some poll from a year ago that you can’t prove was even taken. You just pulled that out of your Repubican place (your ass).

That or you’re a fucking lazy asshole who I won’t even bother wasting time with. if you can’t be bothered to look it up yourself, then fuck you, I have no use for such an asshole as yourself.

But to add to that, I would say I just looked up another article survey, by the same group, released this year, which isn’t exactly known as republican, stating that there is still a majority, or as you may better understand, more than half, against it.

Anyways, fuck you.

That should read “abide by laws”

The whole point of the military is strict adherence to laws.
Slowly, the military is changing.

SnowSoul said:
That or you’re a fucking lazy asshole who I won’t even bother wasting time with. if you can’t be bothered to look it up yourself, then fuck you, I have no use for such an asshole as yourself.

You’re the one that made the claim. Why should I go off on some wild goose chase for something that probably doesn’t even exist.

BTW SnowSoul, that’s probably why you’re throwing out all the insults. Because you know you just made yourself look like a total idiot.

“Legendary”, Colby?

For what? – Enabling the sub-prime disaster by using Fannie & Freddie as Tax-payer funded cash cows for free-loading Democratic voters!
- and then claiming no culpability despite reams of tape showing Frank’s refusal to adjust lending criteria, even as he was warned over and over again of the imminent debacle!

Is that what qualifies as “legendenary” in Democratic circles these days?

11-02-10 —– Send a message to Barney Frank & the Democratic Corruption Machine!!

…and then there were NINE!!

FOX should blare “Eye Of The Tiger” all day as the masses go to the polls to Purge Democratic Intolerance from the political system!!

THANK YOU NPR!!

ps) Would it be asking too much to fire Mara Liasson before next Tuesday?
LMAO!!!
LMFAO!!!

THANK YOU NPR!!!!!

SnowSoul said:
I assume not advertising your sexuality like a play on broadway would be understandable.

This seems like a typical remark from a homophobic person.

SnowSoul said:
And you just proved the ignorance that surrounds this issue amongst those who so fervently push for it’s repeal. Go educate yourself. There’s a poll out, about a year or so old, stating a majority of those in the military would leave or seriously consider it if it was repealed. On top of that, men and women have separate bunks for a reason. I won’t get into the details as I’m sure your parents once told you of the birds and the bees(Or some teacher with a banana and a condom).
If that was too complicated to grasp as a problem before being explained to you, then continuing would be futile

Not sure what all this crap is. Are you saying they all wanna hump every buddy so they should be seperated? Bye the way calling names just proves your a bitter old man but if it floats your boat have at it.

the real john t said:
You’re the one that made the claim. Why should I go off on some wild goose chase for something that probably doesn’t even exist.

john, you’ve got a persistent habit of claiming things don’t exist and then when they’re shown to you, you ignore them. Proving things to you is like explaining gravity to a goldfish.

I have never heard the argument before that gays should not be able to serve in the same way that short people shouldn’t be able to serve. I could argue against it based on the fact that it makes a mockery of reason, but rather I choose to agree with it because it supports a preconceived narrative.

Thelonious Funk said:
I have never heard the argument before that gays should not be able to serve in the same way that short people shouldn’t be able to serve.

That really isn’t the argument. Bielat is simply stating the fact that there is no absolute right to serve. Short is one reason. Openly gay is another. Physical problems, and even potential physical problems are another. Stupid is another. Failing to graduate high school is another. There are many, many reasons that the military can reject someone.

Try getting into the Air Force. It ain’t easy.

Paula said:
An enlisted submarine crewman has about 15 cubic feet of “private” space, a bunk where he can draw a curtain. He shares that with two other sailors. If you can’t imagine 15 cubic feet, imagine sleeping in an average sized refrigerator. The space that’s left is “yours” while you sleep; then, it goes to two other crewmen. Women aren’t permitted to serve on submarines because there is no private space. Gays shouldn’t be permitted to serve either. Gays can serve in certain roles. They cannot serve in all.

What does this mean.Do you think you’ll Catch Gayness or something.Let me see,just Role should The Gays have.Could it be in the Mess Hall. Very interesting comment.

Pablo said:
Openly gay is another

What does this mean to you.I would think a man or woman joining to serve our country wouldn’t be thinking about what outfit to wear to get picked up.Or” flauting their sexuality like a play on Broadway” as another post said.Do you honestly think a persons sexuality makes one less American or Patriotic.I say God Bless Anyone who wants to serve their country.

Gays should be allowed to serve, it’s really a matter of time. But, military readiness and effectiveness has to supercede fairness, and his height analogy is fair enough. I understand the military’s desire to avoid doing this while managing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We need more people like Beilat to run for congress, I hope he wins. Marines are bright, hard-working and we need those attributes in Congress. Brown was double-digits down about a week before election, then only Rasmussen showed him with a slight lead on the final days. Boston might surprise us again….

ROCKSTEADY said:
What does this mean to you.I would think a man or woman joining to serve our country wouldn’t be thinking about what outfit to wear to get picked up.Or” flauting their sexuality like a play on Broadway” as another post said.Do you honestly think a persons sexuality makes one less American or Patriotic.I say God Bless Anyone who wants to serve their country.

Are you at all familiar with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? It’s been the rule for the military since 1993. Do you really need me to explain it to you?

WEll yes explain it to me.I don’t understand why one would walk up to anyone and say hey are you a homosexual.If you are get out.Now if the person was singing a Judy Garland tune and wearing a pink Tutu I could see where maybe you feel you have to ask.But if the soilder is following all the rules and doing his assigned tasks why would you have a reason to ask.Or does it go by how someone looks?

Paula said:
Women aren’t permitted to serve on submarines

They’ve actually said that’s changing shortly. They’ve already chosen the first ones and they’ve started training for deployment in Dec 2011.

SnowSoul said:
And what about gays serving? That may require them to do something they cannot do: follow orders. As I understand it, you don’t ask, and if asked, you don’t tell. How hard is it to accomplish that? I assume not advertising your sexuality like a play on broadway would be understandable. After all, there’s that ROTC lady who outed herself after she had gotten the scholarship and training. I wouldn’t imagine it’d be much harder.

There are some people that are “advertising their sexuality like a play on broadway” right now in protest of the DADT but there are others who are simply trying to lead lives that “don’t tell,” that don’t advertise but are outed by people actively trying to connect the dots of a person’s personal life. Apparently the “don’t ask” part of that “agreement” isn’t being upheld.

Bielat shows America that the culture wars that the Dem’s won in the past are still going on.

You know the Democrats are in trouble by looking at the candidates they are attacking. The very fact that the have enlisted EVERY LEFTWING PUNDIT in almost round-the-clock efforts to save Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in Delaware has been quite revealing. But the fact that they now need to attack Barney Frank’s opponent is even more revealing. You notice that they have given up on smearing Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, etc. Their smear machines are now turned to the last line of defense — trying to shore up districts and states that should be safe bets for a Democrat. In short, you can ignore what the Democrats are saying about the election — just watch what they are doing. Their actions reveal a total desperation well beyond anything they would admit in front of a microphone.

ROCKSTEADY said:
What does this mean.Do you think you’ll Catch Gayness or something.Let me see,just Role should The Gays have.Could it be in the Mess Hall. Very interesting comment.

In a better world, they woudln’t be permitted to “serve”; I would prefer they did not because they’re not there to “serve”, they’re there to either (1) make a political statement or (2) get VA benefits for their assorted, fetid illnesses and diseases.

If the politcs demands, they can, uh, “serve”, state side, in roles that suit their capabilities. (Maybe a P/X needs some shopping windows decorated or something.)

Orion Antares said:
They’ve actually said that’s changing shortly. They’ve already chosen the first ones and they’ve started training for deployment in Dec 2011.

That would involve segregated females existing berths, securing a VERY limited number of showers and toilets and other privacy accomodations.

Now, shall we make such accomodations for gays and lesbians? Or do we expose straight men and straight women to the leer of horny gay men and lesbians? Or to we tell crew to “ignore those grunts and sex noises you hear from the gay and lesbian berthing areas?”

IT DOESN’T WORK. THEY CANNOT SERVE ON SUBMARINES. PERIOD.GET OVER IT.

And tell the left-wing of the Democratic party to stop trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I don’t deny that homosexuals could perform useful tasks in the military, but I draw the line on admitting homosexual proctologists.

Paula said:
In a better world

Thats just sad. But to each his own.

Paula said:
Or do we expose straight men and straight women to the leer of horny gay men and lesbians?

JUST WHERE HAVE YOU GONE WHERE THIS HAS HAPPENED TO YOU?.Your an amazing human.