What other things are "accepted by strong majorities of young people" that everyone else must embrace? <img src='http://i36.tinypic.com/2eoab2b.jpg'&gt;

Even if the policy is wrong you can't encourage breaking regulations in the army because then all you have is a mob.

Somehow I can't generate any sympathpy for Choi. He damn well knew this was likely to happen if he proclaimed his gayness and did it anyway. You sing the tune, you pay the piper.

Not too many soldiers are going to want to have a gay officer in charge of them.

Lt Neidermeyer?

Killed by his own troops.

Later, the babe marries Senator Blutarski.

Later, the babe marries Senator Blutarski.

You mean Mandy Pepperidge? I wonder if Babs is still working at Universal Studios.

"You screwed up, you trusted us."

As a former soldier openly gay soldiers don't belong in the military.

I find this ironic with Obama regarding "gay rights". He said that he doesn't support gay marriage but would anyway because it was "Consitutional", but now fires a soldier for being openly gay.

There is an epic logic fail in Obama's thinking if he goes by that premise. It isn't consistent. Where is this man's "Consitutional gay" rights?

But then, when is Obama consistent other than failing to take a stand except for himself?

I'm actually being the exact opposite of a liberal. I think people should be free as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

And how dare you question my motivations? If you disagree fine, but don't try to invalidate my thoughts with some bs rationalization.

I can buy the "rules are rules" argument, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules are wrong.

And obama is being a hypocrite.

It's a violation of the UCMJ and once admitted there's no option but dismissal. That's where the DADT comes in: no one asks, so you don't tell. The telling then makes the act a violation of military law. Actually, someone practicing sodomy should resign from duty if you look at it that way, they are knowingly violating the very code they swore to uphold.

I'm actually being the exact opposite of a liberal. I think people should be free as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

And how dare you question my motivations? If you disagree fine, but don't try to invalidate my thoughts with some bs rationalization.

You see this is where Rob's position fails.

We have shown time and time again how homosexuality presents a clear and present danger to society. All society, not just military society.

This danger is compounded and indeed supercharged in a military environment. Military living is in extreme close contact and its not uncommon to share canteens and such. There are many occasions that troops are packed in tight, sweaty, bleeding sometimes and dirty. You might not get to wash for days and sometimes, weeks on end.

Communicable diseases can spread very fast within a unit, and not just through sex. Homos don't just carry AIDS. AIDS destroys their immune systems, and once that happens they are crawling with TB, Syph, Hep B… you name it. And yes, one military female can get around a unit and can become a one-woman vector. It's bad enough when what she has only takes a square needle or bore punch to rectify.

Compound this with a deadly, incurable, communicable disease. Now put this in a submarine or even an H&S company. Different units are quite close to one another and combat units will often be in close proximity to mixed-sex units… thus another avenue for the pathogens to spread through a unit.

This doesn't even begin to deal with the psychological component of the military. A major factor in the combat effectiveness in any unit is psychological (e.g. morale, espirite de corps, cohesiveness, cran, etc.. )

For those who have not served, you cannot be expected to understand this spiritual part of being a fighting man.

But consider these comparisons:

- French Soldier
- Japanese Soldier
- Italian Soldier
- US Marine
- Legionnaire

It's not the uniform or equipment that truly sets one fighting organization apart from any other. It is the spirit.

Forcing homosexuality on the military is pure foolishness. It would destroy morale, discipline and seriously fuck with the chain of command.

Once your military is destroyed, there is really nothing between the bad guys and all the soft squishy civilian parts of America. So, really then, it is criminal stupidity to make such a change when there is nothing to justify it.

Weren't you just talking about avoiding pettiness?

If Obama had stepped into such a low level decision you would accuse him of micro-managing. If he simply repealed the ban with a "stroke of the pen" you would accuse him of tyranny.

You're becoming a parody of yourself and giving credence to the people who say you and Dino are the same person.

If Obama had stepped into such a low level decision you would accuse him of micro-managing. If he simply repealed the ban with a "stroke of the pen" you would accuse him of tyranny.

Exactly. Exactly.

And sadly, it's why having a conversation with Kenny is like trying to tell a vagina which side of its lips are pink. He wants to be both sides of the vagina.

Sorry Kenny.

Cause demanding a gay rights dude stand up for gay rights is trying to play both sides.

We both know if Obama had done what you suggested, and believed what you posited, how you would respond. Hint: Not favorably.

I think you are a twit, and a bad actor. Give it up.

We both know if Obama had done what you suggested, and believed what you posited, how you would respond. Hint: Not favorably.
I think you are a twit, and a bad actor. Give it up.

You don't know what'd happen if red and blue were mixed.

Don't speak for me moron.

I don't remember what you have done once upon a time. I know for a fact that over the last several months you call me a liar every time you try and oppose my views. You claim victory every time you inadequately counter my arguments.

Shrug, you are a liar. I see little to it other than that.

Don't be amazed Kenny. People always end up treated the way they tread others.

Shrug, you lie and you lie and you lie.

It's not that you don't remember. It's that you don't give a shit. You're a cowardly little hyena. When someone agrees with you, you'll give them the thumbs up and then call them all sorts of names when they disagree with you. You are no better than Robert.

You are not guided by principle or morals. You're guided by party affiliation. Everything is scorched earth and you're an all or nothing filth who lives to destroy his opponents. It's why you'll defend Obama til the day you die for breaking campaign promises, and defend Clinton breaking the laws he wrote, but will demonize Prejean for doing a standard shoot (like frigging Mylie Cyrus did).

Rest assured I'll still side with you when I agree with you, not because I think you're a good person, but because my beliefs trump party. But from now on I'll add a disclaimer that, despite the people who agree with me, I'm not human filth who salvitates at the destruction of my opponents.

You're garbage H. And you relish that.

And sadly, it's why having a conversation with Kenny is like trying to tell a vagina which side of its lips are pink. He wants to be both sides of the vagina.

Hanjob,

I always thought you gay guys liked to treat women like girlfriends. What's with this aggression you have against women? You need counciling. Get a male psychologist for the sake of your mental self-security.

My brother was in basic training during the short period of the Clinton years when openly gay was allowed and it was not good for the gay soldiers or the straight ones (though the gay ones suffered more).

It's been tried before and it didn't work. The military doesn't outlaw homosexuality, only being open about it – and there are good mission-related reasons for this. It protects the gay soldiers as well as the straight ones.

The military is allowed to discriminate based on criteria that keep soldiers from being interchangeable. Like cogs in a machine, excessively tall, short, overweight, understrength, morally challenged (felons), etc. are not able to perform the same duties as the "average" soldier. Having conforming soldiers means that when one man is down or absent, he can be substituted by another with similar training.

Openly homosexual soldiers would require special accommodations – these are not afforded to other groups, so why do they deserve special treatment? At least gay soldiers can choose not to violate the policy and remain in the military. Those who don't meet the physical specifications, often through no fault of their own, are not allowed in the military at all.

A simpler solution would be to simply ban gays from the military entirely. Would that be more fair than the current rules?

There have always been gay soldiers.

The only difference is now you know it.

Gentlemen…assuming you are gentlemen, please try and act like one so we can have a real conversation, one that needs to be fully developed. Thank you

I see your points Rob, but all I can tell you is my perspective as a military wife of over 18 years before my dh retired, and there has never NEVER been a time when this has gone over well with the younger, particularly unmarried guys, regardless of what the polls show for their age group, they are DIFFERENT in attitude when it comes to this. My husband has had from as little to 3 troops, to over 20 troops at any given time, and almost all of them were young(college age)kids, who might be on par with their age group outside of the military on many things, but NOT on this.

In my experience, the kids that live in the dorms are the most opposed to this, because they have to share rooms and bathrooms, etc. Yes, there have always been gay members of the military, but when you have no choice but to live in a dorm, your personal feelings can be much different than what you would think about the overall society when it comes to openly living with a gay suite or room mate. They have been building better dorms over the years, so many one day it won't be as big of an issue, but the dorms left over from my dh's time before our marriage offer NO privacy of any kind, therefore you could easily see tensions really rising.

Shrug…just my observations. Please don't tear me apart…think this conversation could be productive, but as I have learned over the years of being a parent, particularly a parent of teenagers, you cannot have any kind of meaningful conversation unless you cut out the name calling and the like.

Thank you

You are correct about locker rooms, etc, but we are talking about OPENLY gay soldiers and the attitude about that with younger service members in particular, and I am just telling you the truth from my experience, whether you want to believe it or not.

And I am sure you will respond with bitter nastiness, but are you capable of just having a conversation w/o being so angry? I find some of what you have to say an interesting starting point for conversation, but you can't seem to just discuss things.

No, you don't need to go on. You have proved quite nicely, that you are incapable of having any kind of real conversation unless it proves you to be "right" which I imagine you think you always are. I don't need to be a man to impart what my dh, who IS a man, knows from experience, or what his troops, MALE troops, feel from their own mouths to me.

If you want to have a real conversation w/o nastiness, then let's have one, but no, if this is how you have every conversation, then no need to say anything more

We don't run society by protecting the intolerant. Otherwise women would never have been accepted in the workplace. It made lots of these "young men" you worry about offending quite uncomfortable to be working with women as equals or god forbid, superiors. Should we have limited your opportunity to please them?

It made these young men unhappy when women demanded access to private mens' clubs and business organizations. It made these young men uncomfortable when blacks demanded access to the military and the workplace.

Exactly. I would wager she would be singing a different tune if the intolerance we were discussing was weather or not women should be allowed on the golf course. You know, because how can I swing if the fat woman behind me is eyeballin my gluteus maximus?

And there is important business to be done in the FBI, CIA and federal government. How do you expect all those men to have serious discussions about defending the country when they are trying to impress those women sitting across from them at the table. Surely one of these men is going to let his true feeling slide in order to impress the woman?

Truth is, she will not tolerate that argument, but she will tolerate similar arguments against gays. And now she will claim we are being unfair in the argument, because we have opened her eyes that she has just painted herself in a corner.

Certainly there are men who hate gays in the military. Certainly they will be made uncomfortable with that fact. But like men before them, they are going to have to find a way to man up, an deal.

Hannitized,

You know nothing about me, so don't make assumptions where you are wrong in particular. Please show me ONE word of where I personally said anything about whether I think homosexuals should or should not be able to serve openly. Just one word please. I also never said my dh felt that way…in fact married troops tend to be much more tolerant than those living in the dorms. I simply told you what his TROOPS said. That has nothing to do with my opinion, but you as well, cannot seem to have a conversation with accurate facts or intellectual honesty. It is incorrect and nasty assumptions. Just fyi, not that it is any of your business, you might be surprised at my opinions. I am not a politically correct person, and it irritates me greatly when women think they deserve special treatment. A men's club is a men's club…boy scouts are for boys, PGA mens tourneys are for men. If women don't like it..tough…there are plenty of organizations that are women only

As for you move_zig, thank you for your kind words, and I don't know you to know if you are serious, but your words about gay troops was very unkind and snarky as well. The conversation is a good conversation, but it would be a better conversation if we could just be grown ups and leave the petty nastiness behind.

I guess my point is, why you feel the need to say those kinds of things. How does it really further the discussion? I just don't know you, so I am not sure how your personality is. I am just trying to figure everybody out, and I was wondering if you were serious?

Rob: This firing is a result of Clinton's lack of leadership in the Nineties, which resulted in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which produced the same results in our military that exists between North and South Korea as a result of the UN being unable to allow the conflict to be resolved.
This is not a "liberty" or "freedom" issue, because the military is a command hierarchy, not a representative republic.
The lack of a clear policy, one way or the other, leaves the possibility of this type of selective enforcement, with no ultimate resolution of a very thorny issue.

Oh and for further answer to Hair-Gel Boy

Evidently, you know nothing about that source of moral guidance for an entire generation (reverently) ANIMAL HOUSE.

And since your involvement with the military seems to be serving the Don't-ask-don't-tell crowd after hours, I'll enlighten you on one aspect of combat troops.

It takes a long time for troops to actually rebel against their appointed leaders. Although some of them who have have not been noble, nor had noble excuses for doing so.

But at least during Vietnam, where there had been instances of gross incompetence, the soldiers' last resort was the practice of fragging.

When an infantry unit would set into a spot for the night, each would dig their own fighting hole, foxhole, whatever they want to call them. Sometimes the platoon, or company commander was grossly incompetent (calling bad fire missions down on his own people, getting his unit lost, steering a platoon by accident into the teeth of an NVA division, etc.. ) or was simply an SOB to his own troops. One of those troops just might have reached the end of his patience. At some point in time, an M-67 Grenade, Fragmentation, one each, might, after dark, roll into said leaders' fighting hole, sans pin. About seven seconds later, there would be a change of command to the next highest-ranking service member.

It was also that tacit knowledge that the troops ultimately had the fragging option that kept a lot of NCO's and Officers on their toes. That meant you ran your organization by the book. If you were tough, it was for good military reasons and fairly administered. You were technically and tactically proficient. You knew your men and looked after their welfare. You kept them informed as to the mission and so on.

If you did it right, you would have engendered a sense of loyalty and willing obedience through leadership. You would be the father figure to those troops and they in turn would follow you to hell and back.

That's the plan.

You pukes who know nothing of military organizations or history need to keep hands off from the military.

I would rather you say thank you and be on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

Either way I don't give a damn about what you think you are entitled to!

Badlands,

I trust that you are capable of making up your own mind about people. I will not try to lay my opinion of others in an attempt to preface their self representation.

In fact, I will do the opposite. Here is an example of one of the more intelligent commentators from the right. He is often good at making his argument but will never, ever let you persuade him to another point of view. Even this particular guy can play in the gutter, but that doesn't mean he is all bad. This site is nasty, people get ugly. But you will see their true colors in time.

No doubt, the self-hating, half-breed negro in the White House will be absolutely mortified to hear that he has disappointed you.

Would you say that is appropriate? I wouldn't. But I recognize it for what it is. It's an attempt to lash out at us. And if it's not, well, it certainly doesn't speak well for the person who said it.

And Badlands,

Just so you know, a lot of our conversation here is snarky and insulting. It's part of the entertainment value of participation.

I am kind of reminded of Katherine Hepburn introducing herself to the AFRICAN QUEEN and her shock of Bogarts entire persona.

<img src='http://i41.tinypic.com/i3if6x.jpg'&gt;

Well, SAB is pretty much like coming on board the AFRICAN QUEEN and sooner or later (if you wish to remain) you are going to get offended and get dirty yourself)

Even Bogey observed that Katherine was just a skinny, psalm-singin Old Maid.

If you want to play here, be sure to change into your play-clothes.

It gets rough and won't be getting any cleaner by your presence.

Welcome aboard.

And, of course, welcome aboard. Please visit often. We don't have nearly enough female commenters here, and obviously the civilizing influence isn't nearly what it could be.

There's always the IgnoreDinoAndFriends script that Suite modified from an existing IgnoreDino. It has made dialogue MUCH, much, better.

As for gay soldiers serving in the military, my question is why would I need to know if they are gay? Why would that matter in terms of fighting or performance in the job that they do?

In use, being gay is a political wild card to use to trump the situation to their own special needs – especially for marriage and in the military. Also, hearing from some of our past and present military personnel there, they have given coherent reasons of how it would not benefit the military itself. I have yet to hear again a cogent reason of why it is beneficial for gays to serve, much like why gay people should be married. It's another way of politicizing a field in which has worked for a long time due to the benefits of society. I find it interesting that Choi was mentioning how he had to "lie" in order to be in the military. The rules were clear-cut. It seems like the majority of the gay community cannot get the point is that if they act like individuals, rather than to call constantly to attention their sexual orientation, they probably wouldn't be considered to different. However, if all you are is what sex you choose to sleep with and how different that is from everyone else, when no one really cares or really wanted to know, do expect to be regarded as different, not as an individual.

Lie-in-Court,

You say you were Intel. An officer, in fact. You can't even Intel the answers to your own questions.

IF you ever served. IF you were intel, and IF you were an Intel Officer, one thing is readily apparent.

You really, really suck at doing Intel.

That's why you work at K-Mart now.

Sniveling, dickcheese poseur.

Move_Zig on March 31, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Alrighty, it's Friday, but work calls.

Later.

Too often in the past, conservatives have voted for RINOs, thinking it was the lesser of two evils. Tain't so…

robert108 on August 11, 2008 at 04:47 pm

I voted for him…

robert108 on November 7, 2008 at 08:41 am

But somehow in the process of voting for Sarah, you voted for McCain.

You lie again; I voted for Sarah, like I said I would.

robert108 on April 6, 2009 at 05:55 am

I voted for Sarah(a conservative Republican), and in the process, voted for a guy who isn't really in my Party, IMO…

robert108 on November 6, 2008 at 07:00 pm

Badlands,

Thank you for your honest answers. They deserve honest responses.

My first response will be to agree with you, or rather, meet you half way on one point.

I went to a college where on campus we had "ethnic introduction groups". It was designed were one could learn about each ethnicity, if one so chose. There was the Filipino group, the Afghani group, the Pakistani group, the Indian group, the Hispanic group, ect. ect., but there was no white group.

For the Caucasians I felt bad, because if they had one, I didn't notice and I doubt it would have been received well.

What those organizations did was just create a situation where certain types of ethnicities all hung out together, in their ethnic group. I did not know where to go, I didn't fit in anywhere, not with the whites, not with the Hispanics and not with any of the others. In short it divided.

So while I agree it is our right to have our groups, I don't always believe they are helpful, even if they are designed to be.

I do see your point about all black groups. I think they have a good intention, but I think they hurt their cause more by doing so. Obviously I feel the same about any group or club that separates themselves by race.

I also agued that not all intolerant thought should be "honored". I did not argue if it should be legal, or a right. We all have our right to our own beliefs, and your husband had fought for that right. He deserves my thanks, so please, accept my gratitude.

I still think, however, that it is not a right that should be honored. It is a right that is lawful, in the privacy of ones own home or thought or belief. But those types of intolerance should not be honored in the workplace, or in the military, IMHO.

I am honest enough to admit I may not know what type of damage it might cause. So I leave up to those who do. But, that does not stop me from stating my opinion.

I can accept that I may be wrong and those may decide that I am, and make laws accordingly. I will respect them, even though I may disagree, out of a lack of understanding.

Thanks for your honest answers, they in turn deserved mine.

H,

I can't say that I'm surprised by your performance above, but I am disappointed that you saw fit to quote my hypothetical remark, twice, out of the context of your very own description of Michael Savage as a "self-hating Jooooo!"

Its a pity really that you will always be shackled by the fact that intelligence and integrity count for so much more in this world than do self-promotion and sanctimony.

Its a pity really that you will always be shackled by the fact that intelligence and integrity count for so much more in this world than do self-promotion and sanctimony.

A weakness of mine, but not one in which was practiced with Badlands. You are generally sharper than this.

Also, my comment about Michael Savage was a remark that was also lashing back for the silly contention that Jon Stewart is a "self hating Jooooo". The argument, if you remember, what that he changed his name because he didn't want people to know he was a Jew.

I argued that he changed his name for marketing reasons, much like people like John Wayne, or in the last case, Michael Savage. NOBODY from the right would be intellectually honest enough to agree.

No doubt, the self-hating, half-breed Negro in the White House will be absolutely mortified to hear that he has disappointed you.
Bat One on May 8, 2009 at 04:56 am

Pure breeds in America are a thing of the past.
As has been shown interbreeding leads to many physical and mental ailments.

Dog breeders know this very well, yet, due to demand, and in the name of profit they continue the practice.

Breeding the "Negroes" has been done in this country.
Looks to me that people like Bat One want to continue the practice. Not just with "Negroes" but anyone they consider inferior.

I have to say that I am disappointed with you Bat One.
You appear to be a closed minded person.
Education combined with intelligence opens one's mind, and usually takes the person to a higher plateau.
All that education you tout so often here, is for naught.

Bat,

I didn't identify your remark as a hideous representation of what you believe. I presented it as lashing back, which you just admitted to above.

Nonsense! The intent was to offer a comparison, which you almost managed adroitly.

Nice bit of editing there. I should have known better than to give you that much credit in the first place.

I clearly identified your hideous remark as a lash-back. Even though you attacked the lefties with all the heartfelt hatred you have for them.

Ironically, you ended up being the putz by attempting to malign my intentions, while I was in the process of defending your hideous remark.

A pathetic attempt at character assassination, and all you achieved was shooting yourself in the foot.

Interbreeding leads to a phenomenon known as "hybrid vigor"?

Absolute truth; since we have to do your thinking for you, I'm guessing you confuse "interbreeding", which means breeding different breeds with each other, with "inbreeding", which means breeding only the same breed with only its own.
Get help, lgf!
When it comes to knowing what you're talking about, you are always at a disadvantage.

robert108! I meant to say inbreeding. I mixed up, and used the wrong word. Mea culpa. You are correct in saying that interbreeding leads to a phenomenon known as "hybrid vigor".

Bullshit! I corrected you the first time, and you repeated your lie, while insulting me and calling me crazy.
No matter what you said then or say now, you're way off, anyway. "Hybrid vigor" is a characteristic of the entire human race, except for a few culturally or geographically isolated populations. Back to the subject, if anything, as I said before, Bat's accurate description of Obama's heritage is a compliment to his benefiting from his white parentage. It is true that among black fashion models and movie actors, both male and female, lighter skin and whiter features are considered more attractive, and since a fair amount of Obama's often cited popularity is based on his physical appearance, his white parentage deserves much of the credit for his political success. Moreover, as Spike Lee has acknowledged, even the black culture prefers lighter skin and whiter features.
Had you not tried to enter a conversation about which you are obviously ignorant, you would have avoided the humiliation, but then, you never learn.

I rarely speak of my education. This is because most of what I have learned in life that is of importance has been self-taught. Plus the fact that I am not nearly as inclined to self-promotion as some other commenters here. I have no need to broadcast to everyone else that,

Hahahaha! Yeah……..sure thing Bat. What ever you say pal.

You are the first person to insult others intelligence with the intent to prop up your own.

You constantly prop yourself up, you just do it differently. You usually do it in the way that has to tear someone else down, first.

Bullshit! I corrected you the first time, and you repeated your lie, while insulting me and calling me crazy.
robert108 on May 8, 2009 at 12:22 pm

In this instance I was wrong, and I apologize to you.

in·ter·breed (ntr-brd)
v. in·ter·bred (-brd), in·ter·breed·ing, in·ter·breeds
v.intr.
1. To breed with another kind or species; hybridize.
2. To breed within a narrow range or with closely related types or individuals; inbreed.v.tr.
To cause to interbreed.

r180. Looks like I was correct to start with.
Apology retracted.