DADT Survives Senate Filibuster, Expected to Pass
- Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:12pm by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to advance legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The 63-33 test vote all but guarantees the legislation will pass the Senate, possibly by day’s end, and reach the president’s desk before the new year.
The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week.
Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.
More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.
Rounding up a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was a historic victory for President Barack Obama, who made repeal of the 17-year-old policy a campaign promise in 2008. It also was a political triumph for congressional Democrats who struggled in the final hours of the postelection session to overcome GOP objections on several legislative priorities before Republicans regain control of the House in January.
“As Barry Goldwater said, ‘You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight,’” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., referring to the late GOP senator from Arizona.
Even after the measure were to become law, the policy change wouldn’t go into effect right away. Obama and his military advisers would have certify that the change wouldn’t hurt the ability of troops to fight, and there would also be a 60-day waiting period.
Some have predicted the process could take as long as a year before Bill Clinton-era policy is repealed.
Sen. John McCain, Obama’s GOP rival in 2008, led the opposition. Speaking on the Senate floor minutes before the vote, the Arizona Republican acknowledged he didn’t have the votes to stop the bill. He blamed elite liberals with no military experience for pushing their social agenda on troops during wartime.
“They will do what is asked of them,” McCain said of service members. “But don‘t think there won’t be a great cost.”
In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party in favor of repeal. Republicans supporting the bill were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the only Democrat to oppose repeal, did not vote.
The GOP lawmakers swung behind repeal after a recent Pentagon study concluded the ban could be lifted without hurting the ability of troops to fight.
Advocacy groups who lobbied hard for repeal hailed the vote as a significant step forward in gay rights. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network called the issue the “defining civil rights initiative of this decade.”
Supporters of repeal filled the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor, ready to protest had the bill failed.
“This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The Pentagon study found that two-thirds of service members didn’t think changing the law would have much of an effect. But of those who did predict negative consequences, a majority were assigned to combat arms units. Nearly 60 percent of the Marine Corps and Army combat units, such as infantry and special operations, said in the survey they thought repealing the law would hurt their units’ ability to fight.
The Pentagon’s uniformed chiefs are divided on whether this resistance might pose serious problems.
Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos has said he thinks lifting the ban during wartime could cost lives.
“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction,” he told reporters this week. “I don‘t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda (Naval Medical Center) with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.”
Adm. Mike Mullen and Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, have said the fear of disruption is overblown. They note the Pentagon‘s finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no effect on their units’ morale or effectiveness. Among Marines in combat roles who said they have served alongside a gay person, 84 percent said there was no impact.
—
Online:
Pentagon study: http://tinyurl.com/23lxc49
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network: http://www.sldn.org/
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 678 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 530 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 422 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 275 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 283 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 164 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 275 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (301)
PatriotsCause
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:56pm“Top down, bottom up, inside out.”
Cause disharmony and distrust in the military and bring it down to a nonfunctional close, then perhaps you can put your “Brown Shirts’ in control…
Just one more step in the wrong direction!
Report Post »HemiOwner
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:56pmWhat great news for the military. Guess it will be fabulous! They can march to show tunes rather than those nasty cadences. Get rid of those drab green uniforms and get some pastels instead. Judy Garland sing-alongs around the camp fire, before they pair off to their fox holes. Oh Boy.
Report Post »clinicalminded
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:56pmAnytime Obama sorry, Taxbama, gets a victory, Mike McConnell (Yes intentional) and the rest of these fake conservatives break their promise of making him a one term president. He should get nothing. The Nov vote was to STOP ALL OF HIS agenda to ‘make him a one term president.’
This IS the issue. Period. You cannot make him look Clintionesqe and they are doing it, stupid, falling into the trap….what will happen is he will appear ostensibly centrist…as all progressives do but the damage caused will not be felt until we have barry the foreign minded ‘Hawaiian’ for another term and enough fraud for another super majority. Kiss a guy? Na, kiss your country GOODBYE…
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:51pmso from
Report Post »Combat Duty
to
Combutt Doody
thats just great
Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:42pmAnd now for the encore.. Escape your obligation the military by claiming ‘sexual preference” discrimination.
Quotas for the house: Check for butt plugs before handing out promotions.
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:42pmOh how I wish I weren’t against violence! I daydream of standing outside the chamber doors and plummeting all of them as they exit with rotten eggs and tomatoes…no guns…no flames…just rotten, spoiled goo dripping down their disgusting faces! Hummm…maybe a lil’ tar and feathers as a final send off!
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:25pmMake sure any vegetables used were grown in Mexico, it would be a slap in the face to an American farmer. It would be a SNL moment to see “DIRTY Harry all tared and feathered up..LOL
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:41pmPut them in Pink uniforms and separate units.
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:40pmCongress bends over a new page.
Report Post »Bearfoot1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:39pmThe people in washington still don’t get it. What is going to take to get these morons on the right track. Fix the economy and let the military be in charge of what they think is best for our troops. The top brass have continually siad, that DADT needs to be phased in over years. Somebody needs to fix the flapper ball in the tolilet before the country is completely flushed.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:58pmEver wonder why we haven’t won a war since WWII? These interfering idiots in congress have emasculated the military with their constant tinkering with something that isn’t broken. They need to get the hell out of the way of the military and do what they are paid to do!
Report Post »spendthrift
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:35pmLooks like a nudge with fudge…..
Report Post »betsp
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:35pmSo, won’t this just up the incidents of sexual harassment? What about the rights of straight men to not be compelled to shower with gays, who may or may not be checking them out? This is a volunteer military, and although in a perfect world, sexual orientation shouldn’t have an impact, the reality of day to day life in close quarters might prove a distraction. Sooner or later, somebody is going to get punched.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:48pmDon’t you know, straights, whites, Christians and conservatives have no rights.
Report Post »REETZBEE
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:34pmWhat’s next, gay bars on military compounds? Does this mean they can openly play around in the showers too? I have a feeling this is not going to end well for some gay men.
Report Post »Ashrak
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:31pmAs this would constitute a change in the contract signed by every military member when they enlisted, each and every person in the service must be afforded the ability to opt out of it. If soldiers are to be held to their end, and they are, then so too must government.
This is the line that should be followed now. A flood for requests to leave the Military over this would see the garbage politics being played come to a quick end. DADT is right and proper. Keep government out of the bedroom, right?
There is no such thing as “gay rights” unless of course there is no such thing as equality. When equality exists, there exits only “rights”
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:38pm“There is no such thing as “gay rights” unless of course there is no such thing as equality. When equality exists, there exits only “rights”….WELL SAID!
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:28pmi really don‘t see gay men hitting on the others i really don’t i do however see straight soldiers getting drunk and decide to do some gay bashing
Report Post »Edwardosan
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:49pmThen open your eyes. Selective sight is a lame excuse.
Report Post »alcarfl
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:27pmCan any of you contributing genius’ and basement pundits acurately report the extent of A) the gay and ***** “community” in America and B) the percentage of DADT “candidates” currently active in America’s armed forces. Don’t add in the trans gender, cross dresser, nutsos into the equation. Raise your hand and be counted. Just the facts, man. It seems our government spends a lot of time tending to their “needs” I’ll bet there are more left handed, stenographers in this country, but no one ever goes forth in defense of their plight.
Report Post »PatriotDaze
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:43pmexactly how are left hand stenographers discriminated against?
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:57pmRight, there aren’t many of them. But, some of them would like the chance to serve their country, a noble and honorable thing. They want to serve their country without breaking a law (shhh…you‘re not breaking a law if you don’t tell us you’re breaking it).
Report Post »As patriotic and God fearing as conservatives are, you would think this would be a good thing.
They are not going to bring Baltimore Ave from Rehoboth Beach to Arnold Ave on Dover AFB. The San Francisco gay pride parade is not going to come marching through the front gate.
Liberache is not interested in enlisting. It is more like Rock Hudson or John Wayne.
alcarfl
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:30pmRight handed desks.
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:55pmTonyDarrington, John Wayne was NOT a ***
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:24pmThe socialist six Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
Report Post »RINOs every one. I’m not surprised people in the East support RINOs but, WTF Alaska?
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:45pmIs the M/F ratio of Alaska still 6:1? It gets lonely on the pipeline without any women around.
Report Post »Ron_WA
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:06pmUNTAMEABLE-KATE: well said – WTF Alaska?!?
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:06pmuntameable-kate
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:24pm
The socialist six Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.
RINOs every one. I’m not surprised people in the East support RINOs but, WTF Alaska?
thanks for the complete info I was watching c-span and didnt catch all the rinos votes. These Senators need to step up to the mike and face the camera and vote one by one, let everyone see who they really are. Sad to say I gave money to that Rino Brown…I want a refund with interest. You see Harrys pet on the floor looking like a “LOST” puppy..LMAO…Harry got “PET” COONS in line quickley.
Report Post »AZfreeman
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:43pmExactly right Kate. I can not believe the vote in AK. Why were the State laws not followed in verifying the write-in votes? Is Joe Miller still fighting to have the misspelled-spelled names thrown out? Who would be Alaska’s Senator if the law had been followed? Alaska gets a lot of Federal money. Read the quote below for an explanation as to why Joe lost. Might a few more victories last November have made a difference on DADT? Why are substantive issues even allowed in a Lame Duck Congress when the voice of the people has been shown so loudly? And how in hell did Harry Reid survive in NV? Our message fell on deaf ears and so we will have to finish the job Nov 2012. In the next election when Progressives see the fallout of their radical agenda, they will question the wisdom of sharing our oxygen and crawl into a hole somewhere for many generations. They are glutens for self-destruction. In the final analysis though, we the people elect our representatives and until we change the hearts and minds of the electorate, America will continue it’s decline. Keep up the good fight, and prepare for the worst. …rf
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependence; from dependence back into bondage.”. 18th century Scots historian Alexander Tytler
Report Post »dlmarsh
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:23pmThank God, we are going down the same road as the Roman Empire – loss of morals, corruption, decline of Constitutional Republic, politicians completely corrupt, higher and higher taxes and wasteful Govt. spending, decline of military and eventual collapse of military due to degradation of code and bringing in mercenaries and politicians that eventually brought down the military and country from within. God Save the Republic
Report Post »BRAVEHEART
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:13pmThe final nail in the coffin that saw the total collapse of the Roman Empire was the public acceptance of Homosexual behavior. This open acceptance of deviant, perverse behavior completed the total underminning of this Democratic Super Power. How is it then that America can survive the destructive forces that are now ripping away at the foundations of our Nation?? How much moral destruction can any Nation stand? NO Nation in history has ever stood the open acceptance of Homosexual behavior.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:28pmAlso Sodom and Gomorrah.
Report Post »kokoro
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:40pmRevisionist history at its finest.
Report Post »kokoro
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:41pm@MaryLou…..yet another misinterpretation of the story. What did Jesus say about Sodom/Gom in the New Testament? That was the sin.
Report Post »Diamondback
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:01pmActually, the Roman Empire was a Democratic REPUCLIC.
Sound familiar?
Report Post »dont ****** me bro
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:23pmI am amazed and very happy…America is too often 50 years behind the rest of the world
Report Post »knotaclu
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:30pmactually, I think the US was actually 50 years ahead on this one. Horrible decision…..
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:31pmIh huh…yeah we are 50 years behind because we have been a super power for 75 years. Now we are behind because of progressive/ communist agendas and ideals that you support..moron. please move to europe if you want government to make all your decisons.
Report Post »dont ****** me bro
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:41pmI love how guys like to question my intelligence but can’t spell or make a coherent thought.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:53pmIf the rest of the world is so far ahead of the US why don’t you go to one of those commie utopias?
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:00pmTEABAGEE said,
I love how guys like to question my intelligence but can’t spell or make a coherent thought.
run on sentence…
Report Post »kokoro
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:31pm@ DASHRIPROCK
You Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:00pm
TEABAGEE said,
I love how guys like to question my intelligence but can’t spell or make a coherent thought.
run on sentence…
NO that is not a run-on sentence.
Run-ons are also called fused sentences. You are making a run-on when you put two complete sentences (a subject and its predicate and another subject and its predicate) together in one sentence without separating them properly. Here’s an example of a run-on:
My favorite Mediterranean spread is hummus it is very garlicky.
AND you spelled run-on incorrectly too.
Report Post »SCPO USN RETIRED
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:32pmI don’t recall the legislation of “morality” being in the Constitution! This is a sad day! There is an X chromosome and a Y chromosome …. someone tell me how in the world those can get mixed and become gay? I suspect there is going to be a lot of trouble with this one. For the people who get on their soap box… this is not about race or gender! No GAY is not a GENDER! It is an abomination and against the natural order of things. They can not procreate, so therefore eventually I would think they would become extinct! Not fast enough though.
Report Post »BibleGunClinger
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:02pm@SCPO USN right on….right on…….right on !
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:04pmKORKY
Report Post »You are right I did mispell it. I meant Run-along sentence. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
what4
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:29pmMy favorite statment….Having to lie about who they are, to serve, well, isn’t that what being gay really is?
Report Post »Bad Thunder
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:22pmthe Rump Rangers will be the newest special task force, take that you Afgani bastards!
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:42pmwhat will happen if one of these so called open gays becomes a POW and the LAme stream media will report that for sure. Im a Veteran and I find this action by the Federal Government discusting. Are National Security just was flushed down the crapper one more time.
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:26pmActually individuals with flexible moral, especially involving same sex between males, have an elevated status in Arab and Persian cultures.
Report Post »This does not bode well for a society that wishes to remain above the moral fray.
lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:46pmYeah, Bolec slodkie, they will “elevate their heads right off of their bodies!
Report Post »Deutscher
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:22pmYears from now this will look like a no-brainer.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:40pmIf the six Republicans had voted against cloture Republicans could filibuster this atrocity until congress was dismissed. Alaska just re-elected Murkowski, still loving your vote Alaska? I gave money to Scott Brown. I‘m not in his state but thought it was important to stopping Obamacare which didn’t happen. Now he voted for this. I want my money back. That seat goes back to the Dems. in 5 years now that guys like me won’t send him a red cent. RINOS ARE WORSE THAN LIBERALS!
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:22pmYou’er right. The people who voted for this have no brains.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:52pmMuch adieu about nothing.
Netted out it will have no impact whatsoever on the way the military operates.
DADT was fake from the get go.
Everyone knows who’s who. They have to. They fight side by side for years.
If military discipline was really weak enough for this to matter, we wouldn’t have the best armed forces in the world.
The only thing this does is open the door to additional frivolous law suites. No big.
Hey, on the bright side, now they can draft Barny Frank.
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:43pmMrObvious, you are actually are MrClueless for posting that this “will have no impact whatsoever on the way the military operates”
I know MANY who are now considering NOT enlisting BECAUSE of this new twist from the perverts in Congress.
Just b/c the TRUE men serving in the military don’t whine, moan and bitch out loud, don’t take that to mean it is not a huge problem, because it ABSOLUTELY is (the VAST majority of men in active combat STATED EXPLICITLY that it is a problem, according to the recent report put out on this issue)
Report Post »BibleGunClinger
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:22pmAnother very sad day in American history. Bit by bit America is being torn down, physically, economically, and morally.
Report Post »neverending
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:32pmNot much left to tear down but the bastard isn’t done yet.
Report Post »mintyfresh
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:38pmyeah, giving people equal rights really brings me down. were you sad during abolition and the end of suffrage too?
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:55pmMINTY, when did “suffrage” end, you I’m imbecile?
Report Post »broker0101
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:01pmI love my iPhone spellcheck!!! Lol!
Report Post »BibleGunClinger
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:03pmEqual rights??? For what? An act that is morally and biblically wrong and called sin. Sin is sin, whether it is a white lie or murder. This hogwash about people being born “gay” is a total farce. God created us in His image, male and female. But when sin entered the world, humanity has perverted what is a fantastic and beautiful thing between a husband and a wife. A man and a woman. Ok….now go ahead with the usual progressive drivel and name calling….
Report Post »BibleGunClinger
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:10pmTypical lib reply there Minty……I said nothing about slavery or women voting. And oh by the way, sorry to burst your little ******* bubble…….slavery was wrong and women voting is right.
Report Post »kokoro
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:11pm@BIBLEGUNCLINGER When did you choose to become straight?
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:12pmBibleclinger: The military allows Buddhists, Hindi, Daoists, and Atheists to serve. They are sinners before God. Should they be allowed to serve?
Report Post »Oh, and once you learn how DNA and genetics works, you understand perfectly well how a person can be born gay.
Sgt.Crust
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:46pmBroke101, you are bumbling imbicile!
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:26pmGood response, BibleGunClinger
MInty also is clueless that Bible-believing CHRISTIANS are the ones who put an end to slavery (they were the voices that led to its end)
Merely historical facts!
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:31pmOh, lookie, BibleGunClinger, now TonyDarrington is trying to teach us about morality and genetics!
WHAT A PANTLOAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:01pmDid the Bible tell us that the Earth is a sphere, or did science? The Bible doesn’t explain everything. It provides a good center for a moral compass, and gives excellent metaphorical lessons on how to be good human beings. But, to use it as a backstop to spew hatred at fellow human beings because of who they are sexually attracted to is wrong.
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:35pmTonyDarrington posted: “Did the Bible tell us that the Earth is a sphere, or did science?”
MY RESPONSE:
The Bible did as in the following verse:
Isaiah 40:22
“It is He who sits above the CIRCLE of the earth, ”
You REALLY ought to read a little before popping off here, TonyD!
Beyond that, the sciences were CONCEIVED in the womb of the Christian Church (historically, Christian theology was ALWAYS called the “Queen of the Sciences”)
Tell us when you are ready for your next lesson, TonyD, because you have been schooled here repeatedly
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:44pmYou got me there, but I wasn’t the first to miss that. Just ask Columbus. There are other examples of things the Bible speaks of in a metaphorical way, or a way that was understood by the ancients, but has been proven otherwise by science. Take the age of the earth, for example.
Report Post »I’m not speaking against the Bible, just the literal interpretation of every word.
lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:06pmWell, TonyDarrington, I’m glad you ADMIT that you were wrong about what the Bible said on the subject.
What Columbus did or did not “get” is not the subject at hand (there are MANYwho misinterpret the Bible….YOU are one of them, as proven by your above posts!
As to your assertion of the Bible’s interp being “metaphorical,“ ”proven otherwise by science” – This simply shows you don’t even know what “literal interpretation” means. That phrase connotes interpreting a passage as it was written to be interpreted by the author. You obviously don’t understand that as of yet.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:29pmI really wish these unpatriotic a$$ H’s would go home and leave us alone this close to Christmas .. they had years to get this cr*p through and now I feel actually ASSAULTED at the end of the year …. ENOUGH! … GO HOME AND LICK YOUR WOUNDS.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 1:59amTonyDarrington – what about the lesbians? Shouldn’t they be allowed to serve? The Bible forbids men from sleeping with each other, but doesn’t say a word about women doing it. And it can’t just be an oversight or failure of imagination if it is the word of God who knows everything and was meant as the book of rules for all people everywhere forever. Nope, either being a lesbian is perfectly moral, or the Bible was only meant for the people of the time and place that it was written, and people living in other times and places should be guided by the standards of the society they live in.
Report Post ».
lapob1
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 3:34amChet Hempstead, if you ever bothered to read a Bible, you should’ve read the following:
Romans 1:26-27
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Um, yes, it speaks about lesbians in the same manner that it speaks about male homos.
Therefore, your ASSUMPTION about the applicability of the Bible is based upon your ignorance of the Bible and its applicability (how very circular of you!)
You have proven your inability to reason correctly.
Report Post »tmarends
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 3:15pm@lapob1
You say Scripture should be interpreted as the author wrote it, but then turn around and misinterpret Scripture from what the author said…
Case in point — Romans 1
You cite verse 26 & 27 as a condemnation against homosexuals, but the passage actually starts back at verse 18. The entire passage is about idol worship. Paul is writing that some people who know God decided to turn their backs on Him and worship false idols. Unless it is your claim that EVERY homosexual person on the planet worships idols, then you cannot use these verses as a condemnation of homosexuals or homosexuality.
The other most misinterpreted Scripture passage used against homosexuals is 1 Corithians 6:9. In the list of people Paul says will not inherit the kingdom of God, Paul uses the Greek word “arsenokoitai”. There is no contextual reference to translating this word here, nor where it is used in Timothy, as it is just a word in a list of words. The word “arsenokoitai” appears nowhere in Greek literature at the time Paul was writing, so there is no accurate definition. The word is actually a compound word — “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds” — so “Man-beds”, “male-beds”, or “manbedders” would be better translations into English. The first contextual reference we have to this word comes some 200 years after Paul when it means “pederast” — which was a common practice of wealthy married Greek and Roman men to keep young boys for sexual purposes. The next contextual reference comes in another 400 years where it is used to describe married men who practice anal sex (sodomy) on their wives. In both contextual references it is used to describe the behavior of heterosexual men, yet the word is commonly mistranslated today. When Martin Luther translated the Bible in to German (1500s) he used the “pederast” definition of the word — something we would translate as pedophile today.
I hope this will help you in your continued study of God’s Word.
God Bless
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 20, 2010 at 4:33pmtmarends, have you ever even bothered to study basic hermeneutics?
The passage SPECIFICALLY talks about men having sex with men and women having sex with women. Your attempt at obfuscating that fact is pitiful, at best.
When the author wrote about men and women who “…burned in their lust one toward another,” it is NOT limited to only SOME homos, it is including all who do/did that.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:21pm“This has been a long fought battle, but this failed and discriminatory law will now be history,” said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign. Excuse me, Joe, but I think we have the best military on the planet. What is failed about that?
Report Post »mintyfresh
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:37pmfail = discrimination against our fellow americans who are willing to give their lives for their country.
Report Post »bolec slodkie
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:21pmI like discrimination and so do you. Indiscriminant weapons fire is reduced by Rules Of Engagement (ROE for you civilians). We, as a society, discriminate against unfounded claims of ownership.“Finders keepers” is not a defense against theft and more than “she said yes before she said no” is a defense against rape. We discriminate against people who lie and claim to have combat honors. We discriminate for people who serve honorably in combat.
Report Post »DATA is actually not about discrimination. It is about being discreet. It is allowing behavior many do not accept if the individuals are involved are discreet. It is actually very fair. Many would be appalled if adulterers are allowed to serve openly, why can we not be appalled about this.
The lie is that this is about PRIVATE sexual conduct.
Sgt.Crust
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:40pmPure CRAP, gays and women serving in the military is nothing short of PC BS! As for the gays, I’d be sleeping with one eye open all the time, and as for women, they can’t fight like a man can, they can’t lift like a man can, it is not discriminatory, it is just a fact! I would recommend every straight male to quit the military in protest of this vile law, then let’s see how many wars we win, or could even fight! Progressives are doing this on purpose to dilute our fighting force, and to cause havok among our best and brightest we have to offer! If the law passes, quit I tell you, walk away, we’ve got your backs! Read the Bible, Romans, Liviticus, etc, God detests men who lay down with men, and women who sleep with women, they are vile and disgusting. If it were natural law, then they’d be able to naturally procreate, and we all know the answer to that one. Our congress is against all things decent, moral and fair; the progressive left are communists, and would subjugate our freedoms for ‘social justice’, and like I’ve said many times before, Hitler, Stalin and Mao, killed more people in the name of ‘social justice’, than all wars put together since the beginning of time. IT is TIME we took our country back fro these progressive PIGGOTS! We made great strides last November, now to finish the job next election cycle without fail! Kick the rest of the progressive pigs out, and their little rino’s too! Catch my drift?
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:16pmWrong, mintyfresh
To fail is NOT as you wrote “fail = discrimination”
To fail is to give in to a view that NOTHING may be considered morally wrong (even though the vast majority KNOWS it is disgusting and immoral).
You, like TonyDarrington, you just don’t get it: **** are around 1-2% of the population, yet they demand to be front and center in EVERY single issue (histrionic, flamboyant, drama, call it what you want, the stereotype exists because of historical events/proofs).
As they are in the population, they are an EXTREMELY small number in the military (and MANY of the few have joined to FORCE social change in this last bastion of soundness).
There is no better comparison to the ACORN/socialist/Marxist-archetype of anti-Americanism than there is in the case of homos.
FormerLib has it correct and you and TonyDarrington: are wrong: this will be a HUGE issue in the military (just b/c the TRUE men serving don’t whine, moan and bitch out loud, don’t take that to mean it is not a huge problem…I ALREADY know MANY who had plans to enlist who are VERY concerned and in all likelihood WILL NOT DO SO NOW b/c of this disgusting development).
Report Post »lapob1
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:43pmWrong, mintyfresh
To fail is NOT as you wrote “fail = discrimination”
To fail is to give in to a view that NOTHING may be considered morally wrong (even though the vast majority KNOWS it is disgusting and immoral).
You, like TonyDarrington, you just don’t get it: f_gs are around 1-2% of the population, yet they demand to be front and center in EVERY single issue (histrionic, flamboyant, drama, call it what you want, the stereotype exists because of historical events/proofs).
As they are in the population, they are an EXTREMELY small number in the military (and MANY of the few have joined to FORCE social change in this last bastion of soundness).
There is no better comparison to the ACORN/socialist/Marxist-archetype of anti-Americanism than there is in the case of homos.
FormerLib has it correct and you and TonyDarrington: are wrong: this will be a HUGE issue in the military (just b/c the TRUE men serving don’t whine, moan and bitch out loud, don’t take that to mean it is not a huge problem…I ALREADY know MANY who had plans to enlist who are VERY concerned and in all likelihood WILL NOT DO SO NOW b/c of this disgusting development).
Report Post »Better_Red_than_Dead
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:20pmWonderful.
Report Post »MrObvious
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:43pmWho cars … Nothing really changes … I doubt that troops stationed that long with each other didn‘t already know who was or wasn’t. This just means they can’t be thrown out for saying it.
From a conservative stand point, that’s the way it should have been in the first place.
From a military hawkish standpoint, it’s not likely to have any real effect on combat success.
From a litigation standpoint, expect a bunch of additional frivolous suits.
On an ironic note, this may well be the only good law the president signs in his entire presidency; and, has no real impact on anything.
Report Post »Nvrforget
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:50pmWonderful or “Wonderful”?
Report Post »ares338
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:20pmNow the combat troops will have to watch in front of themselves and now behind themselves!
Report Post »dwh320
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:29pmThanks to the Progressives Socialist Democrats we have a economy looking more like the French… a medical system looking more like the French… a auto industry looking more like the French…a banking system more like the French and now a Army decapitated to attacking the rear just like the French… VIVA LA REVOLUCION
Report Post »sportlock
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:35pmA few thoughts…
Gays aren’t banned in the military, the new law simply allows them to act gay. I don’t worry about the “man” of a gay relationship serving. What doesn’t make sense is the flamer, the “woman” of the relationship. Whom tend to be more fragile then a real woman.
There is a reason contact with men and woman in the military is, for the most part, monitored and controlled. Women are a distraction to men. Neither can help it, it is nature…
What kind of distraction will a military based on 95% men be to a gay man whom by nature, is attracted to men?
Question is, what straight man wouldn’t want to serve with 95% woman who haven’t had sex in months sometimes years? Taking showers with them, changing clothes with them….
Seems like the military would be better then going to a gay bar these days for a gay man. But what exactly would be the punishment for a straight man who punches a gay man for making a sexual comment to him? Would he be prosecuted for HATE CRIMES?
Alot of unanswered questions here, and I‘m sure the Lib networks aren’t gonna mention any downside until the first husband and father catches a 5yr sentence for hate crimes for punching a gay man for getting an erection in the shower while staring at him.
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:58pmThis is just a terrible homophobic remark – this is not going to change anything. All it means is that if some one is gay they will not lose their job – that’s all. They aren’t going to troll for sexual partners, they aren’t going to come on to anyone in the barracks or the shower. And those of you who think that is what is going to happen are very misinformed and ignorant of the issue. Shame on all of you who make jokes on this serious issue!! We are at war and we need all the qualified men and women who want to fight for their country that we can get to volunteer to be in the military. http://wp.me/pYLB7-pF
Report Post »sportlock
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:21pmWalkwithme,
Thank you for your opinion. However incorrect, thank you. My “homophobic” post was taken entirely from a conversation over dinner me and my wife had with my uncle and his wife, TROY. We discussed the downsides of the law, what it meant to a gay man in the military, and what it would change from current conditions.
You labelled a conversation and points made BY A GAY COUPLE, homophobic. LMAO Do you speak as a gay man yourself, or are you simply claiming to have more insite then a gay man who just returned from a 4 yr deployment?
Is there ANY subject you are not ALL KNOWING of?
Now open mouth, insert foot….
Report Post »sportlock
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:27pmBTW Garrett,
Straight men do get into fights all the time in the military. If a straight man was too get into a fight with a gay man WOULD HE BE PROSECUTED UNDER A HATE CRIMES LAW?
Honest question that deserves an honest answer in my opinion.
Report Post »Cobra Blue
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:22pmHey WalkWithMe1966…
You had better wake up and smell the coffee. This new policy is going to embolden the funny bunnies. You live in a dream land.
Report Post »ares338
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:19pmNow the combat troops will have to watch out in front of them and behind them!
knotaclu
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:32pmthere are numorous jokes that could be inserted here and I’m sure a bunch will be posted, but this is a very sad day and just another brick taken down from the wall of morality….
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:43pmThey will need weapons that can be operated with one hand, while they place the other over their bum to protect it.
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:43pmAnd what was said the day the military was desegregated after years of forced segregation by Wilson? What was said the day women were allowed to enlist? What was said the day women were allowed to fly fighter jets and enter combat roles? This too, shall pass.
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:47pm‘You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight,’
No, but it might help to keep from getting shot by one of your own troops.
I love it when libs quote conservatives when it suits their purpose.
Report Post »FormerLib
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 12:53pmTony,
None of the guys I know who have served with women have much good to say about it. Granted, they’re all navy guys aboard ship, but there is a double standard for women.Men fight over or become protective of the women, the women get pregnant, or ‘sick’ all the time, they can’t do the physical work men can, and it’s hard for men to be themselves around the women. Women on the ship contribute to breaking marriages up, and so on. Yes, there are exceptions, but as a rule, this is the case.
The military was not designed for nor ought to be a petrie dish for social experimentation.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:05pmFormerlib: Why are people so quick to assume that the military will begin fratricide once the ban is lifted? There are gays in the military now, and anyone who serves with them pretty much knows who they are. Why do we have so little faith in the integrity and honor of our troops to believe that this will happen and be the norm?
Also, the military is not the petri dish. Gays are already situated in our daily lives. Do you know a gay bank teller, nurse, cowboy, car salesman, cashier…etc. We are not asking the military to give the gay thing a try so we can see how gays will behave in civilian jobs. We are asking the military to catch up to society and allow the honorable young gay men and women who want to serve their country a chance to do that legally.
kindling
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:19pmWhy can’t it just stay the way it is? The only difference between serving “in” and serving “out” is how they are able to act. If the men and women serving now are not allowed to openly hit on each other why should the gays want to have it so they can hit on each other? That is the only thing that would change.
Report Post »dwh320
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:22pmSort of adds new meaning to the old phrase “Their coming up the rear” when talking about tactics in war.
Some do think Love and War are one in the same so this gives a chance for them to prove it.
Report Post »lewbrown
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:40pmThe difference is my banker does not spend 24/7 at work. Shipboard life is limited to the size of the ship and duty assigned. While it’s optimistic to believe everyone is adult and will act accordingly, I find in real life it doesn’t happen. As an ole salt, I can see the photo of the young nurse and sailor kissing after the war in New York… now replace it with a sailor grabbing… Just imagine the iconic image. Sorry just me thinking out loud.
Report Post »highcarry
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:54pmto tonydarrington. when women were allowed in, they were solely nurses and secretarial. i was in the military too long ago to have served directly with women. but i believe that the jessica lynch capture was jeopardized by her presence. i never once heard her say ” i fought till i ran out of ammo, so i tried using my knife “.
Report Post »as far as the gays go, what i believe is this. gays are naturally activists. goes with the territory. so what happens when they start demanding gay marriage. i don’t believe that under current military law you can marry a person of the same sex. how about sex changes. someone’s gonna demand it. how about crossdressing. i’ll just bet along the way, someone will demand it. how about radical gays enlisting just to make demands. and disrupt. this is a lousy idea. but we have lousy leaders.
markcooper
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:55pmWhat a despicable comment. These soldiers are fighting and being killed so you have the right to type such hate-spewed bile.
TruthTalker
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 1:58pmErm Tony, describe to me the honor achieved by commiting sodomy, please.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:07pmLewbrown, Sailors are not on ship 24/7 either, sea tours end, and there is much more to the military than ships, group showers and foxholes. Do we even dig foxholes anymore?
HighCarry, there are gays in the military now. This law no more “allows” gays into the military than the new tax law “cuts” taxes. There are and will be standards of conduct both on and off duty. When I was active, we couldn’t even wear a body piercing downtown in civilian clothes. Hell, they don’t even allow visible tattoos anymore.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:12pmErm, truthtalker private sexual behavior is not an indicator of honor. How many strip clubs can you find outside of the main gate of any military installation? Ask one of your military buddies to relate a story of the prostitutes outside of the gates at Okinawa, Clark AFB, and various other overseas installations. You think that straight soldiers don’t partake in a little sodomy? You think good Christian soldiers only practice missionary position? So, what of their honor?
Report Post »highcarry
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:35pmbut tonydarrington. this most certainly “allows gays in the military ”. as it is now, at the recruiters, underdadt, they don’t know. now a man or woman will be able to tell the recruiter directly that they are in fact gay.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:37pmAn attempt by modern Socialist to showcase you’re queer if your serve.
Report Post »shorthanded12
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 2:43pm13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.
Simple math here 13,500 since 1993 thats an average of 794 being dismissed per year since 1993. If my memory is correct we have roughly 2 million total military force that includes the NG and Reserve units. For every 2519 military members 1 is being dismissed under this law. The percentage of gays in the military has to be so low that this DADT was a waste of DOD’s, Our Military field Commanders and Congressional members time not to mention what taxpayers had to pay for this BS.
Report Post »lewbrown
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:06pmTony you are right, the longest one I was on was 4 months in the South China Sea. During that time they had to extricate two male Sailors from a Helo caught in the act of Love and all of this during flight ops. . There may have been others, but I guess they were more discreet. Fox holes… hell I don’t know. I try to talk about what I have seen and experienced. What service were you proud to be a member of, Tony?
Report Post »101
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:34pm.
Report Post »You know who point man will be, the one with a lisp…brings a whole new meaning to check my six!
TonyDarrington
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 3:55pmLewbrown, AF for 16 years, now Army. And yes, I had a damn good reason.
Report Post »Steverino
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:06pmHi everybody. I do NOT mean this to be inflammatory in any way, I’m simply “thinking out loud”:
What if the openly gay soldiers were organized into regiments, much like the black soldiers were during the civil war?
That would eliminate the possibility of infighting between gays and straights, within a unit, anyway.
As the organization moves forward, it would become readily apparent whether or not gays are as effective in fighting and team cohesiveness as straights.
If there is no way to defeat the bill, I believe this concept would cast the entire issue into the plain light of day. It could certainly be a catastrophe as well.
I, for one, believe there is intrinsic honor in putting your life on the line for your country. However, if you are working at odds with the true interest of your country, this concept could prove to be a very clear indicator.
Once again, “thinking out loud”, with the intent of opening some engaging dialogue.
Thanks-
Steve
http://stephencharles-poppin-off.blogspot.com/
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 4:51pmThis will end careers, just in a different way.
You thought DADT was a recruiting issue before? 40% of Marines say they’d get out rather than deal with it.
Also, alot of gay servicemembers will be charged with sexual harassment needlessly, while in communal showers, locker rooms, etc.
And you’re gonna have special treatment of gays. They’ll have their own rooms, or homosexual roommates where hetero males & females can’t room together, even if they’re in a relationship.
Lots of great things, rolling right down the pipe.
Report Post »USA_Exceptionalism
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:03pmThe gays will form a special fighting unit known as the Raspberry Berets.
Report Post »Cobra Blue
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:08pmThere is absolutely no benefit to the military ops having this kind of policy. Just the progressives wanting to push their agenda. Just watch…some limp wristed lolly pop queer is going to play grab ass with the wrong soldier in a fox hole and receive a butt whippin’….next thing you know the little miss lolly pop will complain to the commanding officer and the soldier (who responded in self-defense) will be brought up on hate crime charges. Hey lolly pop…better watch out for that friendly fire. GOD help us and have mercy on this Nation.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:14pmThe US has already been through this with blacks serving (which many thought would destroy the army) and with women. This is old news. I suggest that by the time the people who object grow old and die, everybody will wonder why anyone cared.
For it’s size, the Israeli army is one of the most ferocious in the world. They’ve allowed openly gay soldiers for 30 years. They don’t care, they know it doesn’t matter, and so will we in a couple of years.
Report Post »hud
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:40pmIf I’m queer, this wouldn’t change a thing for me. I‘d still keep my mouth shut if I wasn’t suicidal.Silence is golden if your not the best troop in the outfit. Oh by the way I served. unlike the ******** who voted for this.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:50pmOBAMA’S PET GROUP ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA delivered 28,000 signed petitions to MARK KIRK and a similiar number to SCOTT BROWN. It is hoped that this group can pick of the newely elected Repuplican Mark Kirk from Illinois….looks like he sold out early. Watch this RINO he only got seated early due to Roland Burris quitting so he could run for mayor in Chicago.
Report Post »hud
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 5:55pmSo much for the Republicans saving this nation, or even having a clue. The six of them should be expelled from the republican caucus.
Report Post »Deuteronomy22
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 8:04pmTony, Well stated.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 9:33pmI would give all homosexual rights if we could jail the AIG and Goldman sachs
Report Post »Scum
U-R-Busted
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 9:49pmI was in the Military in Viet Nam and I would not have liked the thought of who in the barracks and shower may be ogling me with their eyes, nor would I want my comrades in arms to be suspicious of me possibly ogling them. This will create tremendous distrust and chaos! Just what the obuma (very sick and twisted person) administration and lefty types would love to see.
Hey, why have any integration at all??? I think in light of this new view, women and men should live, work and fight together. Can I re-enlist at 63???
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 10:03pmAsk any combat vet about the amount of nudity and loss of privacy lost out in the hinterland. I would not want to open a door, only to see the CO having his pipes cleaned.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 10:12pmU-R-Busted – I think you are insecure with your sexuality. Why do give a damn who looks at you? What do you think, a gay guy is going to make move on you in the shower? Or somewhere else? Are you afraid you might not be able to say, “Sorry, but I don’t swing that way”? And then say “Okay, now that‘s out of the way let’s work together to serve the military”?
Or do you just think that you‘re such an attractive guy that gays can’t resist you?
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 11:02pmJZS: By your logic you would see no problem with Co Ed showers as well.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on December 18, 2010 at 11:35pmR-U-Busted 1st welcome home brother. I worked I Corps in 69. 2nd pay no attention to JZS he would wet his pants if somebody spoke in a cross fashion to him. In Texas they would say he is all hat no cattle
Report Post »gapch68
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 4:10amI can‘t wait for progressives’ children to get drafted to serve because there aren’t enough volunteers. Unintended consequensenses!
Report Post »ozz
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 4:48amI swear….better a Dumbocrat than a freakn Rhino!! I am so donating to who ever runs against OLYMPIA SNOW. Republicans should oust Rhinos that break the ranks.
Report Post »And so fell the great US military…not by a superior army …but by an inferior congress.
mara123
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 8:30amNow bring back the Draft, an make them serve! no amnesty for draft dodgers either.
Report Post »tifosa
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 9:01amI‘d wager that there’s more gay-bashing in here than there will be in among the military. Any mention that both a majority of military AND of the American public supported the repeal of DADT?
Report Post »ClockKing
Posted on December 19, 2010 at 11:43pmI am sick of you gays comparing your status to that of black people. It is NOTHING like it, and YOU KNOW IT! Black MEN have always served in the armies of the world throughout human history.Sick of you leftists spinning lies and half-truths to suit your own screwed up world view.
Report Post »