Politics

John McCain Gets Testy With Gay Media Reporters While Defending DADT

National Review says McCain “testily” responded to the reporters.  Mediaite says he “loses his temper.” You decide. Here’s the NRO video:

Mediate ID’ s the reporters:

Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate and Chris Geidner of Washington, D.C.’s Metro Weekly

Comments (130)

1 2 3
  • diablosho
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:27am

    “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was designed TO ALLOW gays to serve in the military, not to disclude them. I am in the military, and I (along with MANY others), can not imagine living this life without it. Think about it. If they are already allowed to serve now, what do they possibly hope to gain by getting rid of DADT. The ONLY thing left to gain is the right to be “public and in-your-face” about it. PERIOD!

    Report Post »  
    • Suzanne S.
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 11:41am

      Thank you for your service.

      In my opinion the military is no place for a social experiment. I am dunbfounded by some of these people leaving comments that gays should be able to serve their country, etc. If the homosexual people really love their country they would not be screaming for “their ” rights. It is an honor to serve, and my husband has for the past 20 years. I cannot imagine him having to sit through the numerous “tolerance ” classes that would enevitably follow this repeal and the countless discrimination charges that would have to be heard.

      Think of how you would house them, now that they would be “out of the closet”. Gay men with lesbian women? Seriously has anybody even thought down the road what this all means??

      This is again another way that this administration is attempting to “transform” America, by crippiling our military.

      Report Post »  
  • KEA
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:14am

    Open gays in the service doesnt work! I served my country with a carrer in the AF and I assure you I know first hand what the agenda of many of the homosexual movement is. Sure there may be a few that want to serve the country but more of them have an agenda for them movement than most realize.

    I married a gal from the Gulf Coast while stationed in MS. 2 weeks after our first child I find out she was a lesbian. Long story short, her whole plan was to do nothing but find a GI, have a kid, and then live happily ever after with her lesbian freind who was an AF enlisted member. As the divorce proceded and more was exposed, there was no less than 20 lesbians she knew who were all in the AF and their committed goal was to destroy God Fearing Men who wanted to serve and raise a family as they HATED men with a pasion. The sad part, they wanted a kid and didnt care who it was fathered by as long as who ever it was would pay dearly and since it was a child of a GI they would have all the benefits of free health care, BX privlages, Dental etc.

    This group of woman got exposed and LOTS of us were hurt deaply over the event but I can stand proud and say I faught for my country, my child, and my future and I won! I beat that low life manipulating woman in court and got custody of my child and she has had to pay child support up to his 18th birthday. You want to talk about a pissed off Lesbian.

    The sad part, I had no clue she was gay until two weeks after our child was born as it was then that all her Gay friends started showing up and pressureing her on to the next move. She made the move and LOST!

    Report Post »  
    • American Pride
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:33am

      Amazing. Is this documented anywhere?

      Report Post » American Pride  
    • Dyllon
      Posted on September 23, 2010 at 1:54am

      Your argument would have made more sense if it was a gay man impregnating a women for the same reason. A women does not require a man to have a child but merely requires semen which is readily available at sperm banks. And even if this supposed story is true (which I highly doubt) it’s an extremely hasty generalazation to say that all homosexual people are like the women you described.

      Now, perhaps this story could have been true if it were that the woman genuinly wanted to have a family and was so pressured by society to not be lesbian that she attempted to be straight. Inevitably, such relationships end in a break up because there’s simply not the same physical attraction.

      As a final argument, I’d also like to point out that the women did nothing wrong legally if one accepts your argument as true. You were a fool for not seeing the scam the woman was trying to pull on you and that was the sole error committed, not by her, but by you.

      Report Post » Dyllon  
  • printdesignchicago.com
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:10am

    homosexuals serve in the military. they ALWAYS HAVE.

    to have them prancing around in rainbow colored outfits with pom-poms, waving big flags about being queer and here would certainly get their heads blown off in combat and endanger the lives of our other troops. j/k…

    but seriously – 95% of gay people you probably wouldn’t realize are gay, because they don’t fit the flaming **** stereotype. those are the ones who should NOT be thrown out of the military just because of their sexual orientation.

    Report Post » printdesignchicago.com  
  • Deanna Z
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:09am

    The reason they stopped gays in the military was because they could not keep it off the bases or ships. They were caught in the act while on guard duty in combat zones putting the lives of their fellow soldiers in danger, they were caught in the restrooms and barracks. During war when the lives of soldiers are on the line and those on guard duty are their first line of defence so they can get a little rest when they can they should not have to worry about what that guard is doing out there. These are just the simple facts, no one outed them, they ruined it for themselves.

    Report Post »  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:20am

      So, female soldiers and male soldiers never have sex at inappropriate times?

      Report Post »  
  • DGroundhog
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:07am

    Can’t blame him for correcting these idiot liberal reporters misreporting the facts.

    More people should do this. The liberal media spins the truth into some fantastical story about how evil the military is, how evil Republicans are, and whatever other smear fits their talking point of the day.

    Report Post »  
    • Brad Clyne
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:55am

      This is the statement that Major Almy delivered to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and to Senator McCain. From what I can gather this is at least one of the cases that the reporters were trying to discuss with Senator McCain.

      http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Almy%2003-18-10.pdf

      Did the Senator lose it? Nope. As others have posted, we‘ve all seen Big John lose it and this wasn’t even close. But, he refused to address the fact that the policy is being ignored. Which was why he was badgered by the reporters.

      People shouldn’t be discriminated against because of who they are, those who honor this nation by serving in uniform deserve our support, and Senator McCain, probably more than any, should understand that.

      Report Post » Brad Clyne  
  • KDuffy
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:57am

    I’d say McCain handled this situation as well as it could have been handled. The best weapon we have against nonsense is the truth.

    Report Post »  
  • Deanna Z
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:54am

    The one big thing in this whole story the media won’t report on iis the fact that Sen Harry Reid after sticking all this trash on the defence bill voted “ NO ” on it. Not one word on this wee little fact and he wasn’t the only Democrat to vote no or not vote at all because only one Republican was not here for the vote. The vote was 56-43 and there are only 41 total Republicans with one not present for the vote so even if all the Republicans had voted yes on this Harry reids no vote alone would have shot this bill down. For the Harry Reid, the Democrats and the media to say that the Republicans blocked this bill is a farce.

    Report Post »  
  • DagneyT
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:52am

    I’ve seen him lose his cool, this is not it!

    Report Post » DagneyT  
  • RojBlake
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:27am

    The whole issue of “don‘t ask don’t tell” is bizarre…I don’t have a problem with the policy because, quite honestly, I don’t think the military should know, or care, what sexual preference anybody is.

    What you do off-duty & off-base is exactly that (as long as it’s not illeagal), so what’s the real agenda?

    The gay agenda is like most of them, they don’t want tolerance…they want acceptance, validation, & endorsement. The “gay rights advocates” (I’m talking about the “political activist” machine, not people who are gay & just want to live thier lives) don’t want to “tolerate” any world view that doesn’t hold thier political-cultural view as “being the right one”

    Report Post » RojBlake  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:37am

      “The whole issue of “don‘t ask don’t tell” is bizarre…I don’t have a problem with the policy because, quite honestly, I don’t think the military should know, or care, what sexual preference anybody is.”

      You’re right, they should not care. But they do, is the thing. If you are gay and in the military and they find out, they’ll care an awful lot, enough to kick you out, even if they cannot demonstrate that your presence was harmful to military readiness.

      “What you do off-duty & off-base is exactly that (as long as it’s not illeagal), so what’s the real agenda?”

      The point is that right now, being a homosexual in the military IS illegal. There is no agenda other than that.

      Report Post »  
    • RojBlake
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:51am

      Deaconblues,
      I’d like to believe that, but history doesn’t bear it out. (Please keep in mind that what I’m about to post is in regards to the political activists not the “average person”)

      The agenda usually starts out as something “completly reasonable” & then there’s the push for more & more & more (This is true for most political activist movements).

      This is where the “camel under the tent” & “slippery slope” analogies come from.

      Look at the “gay pride” parades (as an example) some of the things that go on in those parades, if I & my wife engaged in that behavior in public; we’d be arrested for public indecency etc.

      If someone proposed a heterosexual section of a parade people would be outraged…this is what I mean when I say that the goal isn’t “tolerance”.

      Report Post » RojBlake  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 10:22am

      What agendas have started out reasonable but wound up unreasonable in history?

      What are people doing in gay pride parades that would get straight people arrested?

      Some people might be pissed if you threw a hetero pride parade, but they would be the minority, more because there’s always someone to get pissed about something, no matter how innocuous it is.

      You’ve been spoiled by a lifetime of privilege; to the privileged, equality seems like oppression.

      There is a “gay agenda”. The agenda has one item on it: Get the same rights everyone else has. That’s it. That’s the one thing.

      Report Post »  
    • RojBlake
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 12:44pm

      >What agendas have started out reasonable but wound up unreasonable in history?There is a “gay agenda”. The agenda has one item on it: Get the same rights everyone else has. That’s it. That’s the one thing.<

      The problem is that the political wing of the argument defines "rights" a little differntly.

      1st. In the military you VOLUNTARILY suspend some of your rights to the "chain of command" & place yourself under the "Uniform code of military justice" etc. so EVERYBODY in the military has fewer "RIGHTS" than an ordinary citizen.

      2nd. "Same sex marriage" is an oxymoron & is NOT a useful tool for the state.
      (Please understand here, I don't care what consenting adults do behind closed doors…but the idea of "supporting" SSM bears no benefit to the state. Marriage is, originally, a tool of religions that found support by the various states [governments] for similar reasons. The church would insure the continuation of thier congregations & supporters…the state insures the continuance of new taxpayers; as well as saving the state the cost of raising "little taxpayers". Gay couples do not "produce" this benefit, therefore there is no State/Chrch benefit for endorsing those couples)
      Gay men & lesbian women are NOT denied the "right" of marriage…I have known gay men who have married "straight" women so that they could have families…no one said that those men could not marry because they were gay. (Note: The 2 men that I knew who had arrangement identified themselves as "gay" not "bi".)

      If the military changes the policy (& they have said that they will when they can deal with all of these issues) will they allow co-habitation allowences for gay/lesbian couples…if they don't will the military be sued? etc. etc. etc. For that reason I believe that the military should be allowed to deal with this in its own time & way.

      3rd: Rights means tolerance NOT acceptance, if you are denied a job because you are gay, you have an argument, if you are mistreated by a "public agency" you have a point…if you are insulted on the street…deal with it because it happens to almost everybody.

      4th: You cannot legislate the feelinge, hearts & minds of the populace…men are allowed to feel & think as they will. The KKK is, in my opinion, WRONG, the New Black Panther Party is, in my opinion, Wrong…but I cannot force or legislate either of those groups the feel or think differently…jast as many religions feel that homosexual behavior is WRONG…the government does not have the authority, nor the ability to alter that belief…even if you, or I believe that they are WRONG to do so.

      Report Post » RojBlake  
  • Sara
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:26am

    I didn’t think he lost his temper… I can only imagine it would be infuriating to be former military and to have to get attacked for defending the policy that is being followed.
    …on a side note, Lindsey Graham is the worst republican of all time

    Report Post » Sara  
  • flamedone1968
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:01am

    He did way better than I would have. I would have been very colorful in my wording to them while having security remove them for THEIR SAFETY. (my size 12 steel toe boot) When questioned about it latter I would simly say “After the tenth time answering the same question with the same answer their welcome had worn out my paintence.”

    Report Post » flamedone1968  
  • mtnclimberjim
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:55am

    Gay reporters piss me off also. In fact gay people piss me off. I don’t like them, I think they are sexual perverts with this morbid sense of thinking they need special rights. Freaks and Jackasses.

    Report Post » mtnclimberjim  
  • jose wasabi
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:33am

    I served 9 years in the military. My opinion is that gays do not belong in the military. And I think the military should decide the matter not public opinion or the liberals.

    Report Post » jose wasabi  
    • RefoundHonor
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:44am

      What you just suggested is a step beyond DADT. Talk about big government. Nice endorsement.

      Liberal/Progressives = Big government on domestic issues
      Conservatives = Big government on military and foreign policy

      Big government doesn’t work! Period! A lot, not all, but a lot of conservatives are such hypocrites when they preach against big government.

      Report Post »  
  • SummerB
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:13am

    Naturally, they were trying to bait him. Love his last line after saying is 20 times, ‘I’ll get that in writing to you if you want me to.’ Sterling!

    Report Post »  
  • TheBaneyHome
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:04am

    What happened to keeping sexual preferences in the bedroom??? I, personally, would like to get back to those days.

    Report Post »  
  • Marylou7
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:46am

    Gays in the military can be a very uncomfortable, to say the least, situation and I know first hand. During my service there was a lesbian that taunted the others continuously. One morning we got up and she was gone. There had to have been dozens of complaints about her. Apparently she was only there to find a partner. Sure all gays are not like her and can control their urges but it is still very uncomfortable dressing and undressing in front of someone you know is checking you out. I want to be fair with them but is it fair to the others? Let the military do their study to see how it may affect the entirety of the services after all they are the ones that count. Times change and people change. If they are okay with it then so am I. (my service was during the Viet Nam era before DADT)

    Report Post » Marylou7  
  • LIVEFROMWV
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:43am

    McCain was upset why? Because he is Ex Military. He holds true to Duty, Honor, and core Values, that make our military the best in the world. Why is there even an issue here? Why do the few deserve special treatment?
    Look how they have attacked the Boy Scouts on this Gay issue.

    Report Post »  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:54am

      1) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is actively harmful to the core values you espouse.

      2) Nobody, anywhere, ever is saying that gays in the military deserve preferential treatment. They are saying that they deserve to be treated the same as anyone else.

      Report Post »  
    • seayalater73
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:12am

      DeaconBlues,

      The reality is that DADT is not harmful to the values we espouse, it is the current and future political garrymandering that is. Currently we are debating the very role of humans in future combat. The debates we truly have are in keeping with the highest value we hold: DUTY. Forcing the military to repeal DADT, and make special accomadations to a group of people that are not in fact a minority race or gender, is going to have consequences. Who gets to pay? The gays and straights who will face defeat on the next battlefield, thats who. Let us do the job you demonstrate so little understanding of, and let DADT stand so GLB’s can serve as humans first and foremst. All you people make it sound like they are some curiouse little lab animal you want us to play with for you. Get real or go away.

      Report Post »  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:40am

      Yes, DADT is harmful to the core values of the military in a very direct and obvious way. As I stated, the military demands integrity from its members, and I don’t mean this in an oblique, conceptual way: it is on a list of necessary character traits drilled into recruits in boot camp. You cannot demand that someone to lie about who they are and then ask that they show integrity; the two are mutually exclusive.

      Again: Allowing gays to serve openly is not a special accommodation. It simply is not. It’s not even an argument, it’s a statement of fact. Right now they are legal citizens who are being denied the full rights of citizenship.

      On gerrymandering: this term refers specifically to modifying the boundaries of electoral districts for electoral reasons, causing them to be oddly shaped. It is a purely geographic term and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

      Report Post »  
    • seayalater73
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:56am

      I‘m not going to get into a stupid argument of what gerrymandering is or isn’t when applied to the structures within DOD. The point is that we already have a top-heavy organization too quick to respond to political pressures. If you think DADT is violated becuase someones email was being screened for whatever reason, then it stands to reason that almost anything we do could be interpreted as a violation of someone’s “rights.” I think at the heart of this issue most people fail to realize just what are priorities are in the Military. Service is not a right, it is a priveledge. We have to prove ourselves worthy of it on daily basis. Turn it into a “right,” and tell everyone they were born with it, and see what they do toward national defense on a daily basis: nothing. This is not about whether someones sexual preference is moral or not. It is about whether they can accept thier real civil rights being trimmed back in the interest of something higher, and do so without people like Nancy Pelosi tapping on their Commander’s shoulders.

      Report Post »  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:27am

      You didn’t really respond to what I posted, aside from the gerrymandering comment, but here’s my reply anyway.

      “The point is that we already have a top-heavy organization too quick to respond to political pressures.”

      How so? And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

      “If you think DADT is violated becuase someones email was being screened for whatever reason, then it stands to reason that almost anything we do could be interpreted as a violation of someone’s “rights.” ”

      I don’t recall mentioning any email screenings. In fact, earlier I said it was irrelevant. But, since you brought it up, this argument you offer is bad: IF- you think DADT is violated through email screening THEN – almost anything we do could be interpreted as a violation of someone’s “rights”. You have set it up as an implication, but an implication is worthless on its own. There is no inherent connection between these ideas and you have not supplied one, and that’s even ignoring the inherent subjectivity and vagueness of the language you have used.

      “I think at the heart of this issue most people fail to realize just what are priorities are in the Military. Service is not a right, it is a priveledge. We have to prove ourselves worthy of it on daily basis. Turn it into a “right,” and tell everyone they were born with it, and see what they do toward national defense on a daily basis: nothing.”

      You speak of inborn rights with such disdain; that seems odd, given that the very idea of American life is built on the fact that we are born with certain inalienable rights.

      “This is not about whether someones sexual preference is moral or not.”

      You’re right. It isn’t. I don’t recall saying that it was.

      “It is about whether they can accept thier real civil rights being trimmed back in the interest of something higher, and do so without people like Nancy Pelosi tapping on their Commander’s shoulders.”

      No, it is not. It is about fair and equitable treatment, and it is about demanding that our military have the same standards for the treatment of our personnel that we demand of our citizenry.

      Report Post »  
  • DeaconBlues
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 5:09am

    1) He was testy, because he was being badgered. He was being badgered because he refused to acknowledge that, while military policy says one thing, another can and does happen. That said, the argument they were having is irrelevant – there is only one reason that DADT needs to end, and that is that under the current policy, a situation can and does arise where an American citizen would have to lie about who they are in order to serve their country. We need to demand honor and integrity from our armed forces and we cannot do that if we also demand that they lie about themselves. That is Admiral Mike Mullen’s take on the matter, and if he was good enough to be Bush’s Chief of Naval Operations, his opinion should be enough for all of you.

    2) A site run by a constitutionalist for constitutionalists has no business whatsoever being anti-gay, concerning the military or anything else. What people do with their dangly parts when you aren’t in the room is none of your business, regardless of whatever grounds you feel justify your disgust. It is downright stupid to advocate small government and in the same breath suggest that some citizens should have fewer rights than others; are not all Men created equal?

    Report Post »  
    • flamedone1968
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:42am

      It’s my understanding fraternization is against military policy period. What is being demanded here is the right to openly fraternize, at least if you’re gay.

      Report Post » flamedone1968  
    • DeaconBlues
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:32am

      Fraternization, as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, is when two individuals separated by rank (more than two paygrades, or between any officer and any enlisted member) carry on an innappropriate relationship – of a physical variety or otherwise. Nobody is suggesting that gays should be allowed to do this, not even gays. All they are asking for is the opportunity to serve as open homosexuals.

      Report Post »  
    • Sanity
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:51am

      Well structured argument Deacon

      Report Post »  
  • patton55
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:57am

    should we disarm LIB76 ?

    Report Post »  
    • flamedone1968
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:48am

      He’s already mentaly disarmed I think. Reminds me of the monotone computer voice on a cheap answering machine.

      Report Post » flamedone1968  
  • liberty76
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:43am

    As for the don‘t ask don’t tell policy, in the military, you surrender your rights and in return your only granted privileges, which, can be revoked. In the end I side with private property rights and as a volunteer, to the Military, they have every right to refuse enlistment of openly gay people. In the end don‘t join the corporate military it doesn’t fight for freedom, it plunders under direct order from the various government protected corporations. Its murders it doesn’t liberate. Is death the only thing America exports. Its all a lie. Left Vs. Right is a technique to distract from the real issues.

    Report Post »  
  • patton55
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:37am

    the REALISSUE is not gay blah, blah blah. it’s the dems once again stuffing crap into a bill to pay for the basic needs of our wonderful troops!

    Report Post »  
  • Timekeeper
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:39am

    It’s nice to see McCain should that he has a pair – we all know that you cannot tell facts to a liberal – they just won’t them them get in the way of their flawed beliefs. So, at times, you just have to tell them that they are full of ,,it

    Report Post »  
    • realAmerican
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:51am

      I remember when John McCain had a shred of integrity left.

      Report Post »  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:19am

    what EVERYONE IS MISSING………..the transfer of wealth that these people are talking about is not what Americans think it is. This is not a transference or redistribution of wealth from rich Americans to poor Americans….. dont seem to grasp the true concept. This is a redistribution of wealth FROM America to the rest of the poor……in the REST OF THE WORLD. You have to realize every American is considered rich compared to most median calculations of income to other countries. They have already started the machine by Obama shutting down drilling and giving upwards of 4 billion dollars to Brazil and Mexico to do exactly what Obama has shut down the U.S. from doing. In the same area in order to “save the world and environment.“ This was not done to ”save the environment”, but was done to limit our production and greatly assist in a poorer country to produce a product that we then will be forced to purchase from them. This has allready started with solar panels and light bulbs- (of all things……cheap to us right now, and you say so what, but everything is cheaper to make elswhere….mexico/ china etc. with the de- industrializing of our nation helped along by union reps (not union members mind you ) whose self stated goal is a world union….WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE……WORKING IN COLUSION WITH THIS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION and the FED in their goals to create a world bank and a world government that will strip America of its wealth and spread it around with them in control of everything this IS COMING AND MUCH SOONER THAN YOU THINK UNLESS WE STAND UP AND STOP IT

    I do not believe our government has the countries best interests as a goal. I know these videos are kinda long but if you watch these videos and then look at the goals of the big union bosses words of a world government, the veiwpoints and ideologies of all the people working with this administration who controls the fed bank and glenn becks 9/21 show it will help you all to make a decision on what these peoples goals really are.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531#

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • smamere
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:49am

      Totally agree. We need to stop preaching to the choir here online and tell the neighbor who voted for the progressives thinking they had the American citizenry’s best interest at heart. 10% of any given demographic is fringe, so forget them. Try to have a discussion with a person who has common sense, a mortgage, 2 kids and a tenuous hold on a job soon to be shipped overseas.
      This administration has to be brought up short and introduced to American Constitutional proponents of every stripe who know how to use a vote.

      Report Post » smamere  
    • rocktruth
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:49am

      smamere says “We need to stop preaching to the choir here online and tell the neighbor who voted for the progressives thinking they had the American citizenry’s best interest at heart.”

      I fully agree. But right now at least we can email links and videos to friends, families, and colleges.

      But people rarely speak to their neighbors anymore. How do we reach them?
      Bake some cookies, walk them over, shoot some small talk, leads to political talk, then and ask them for their email address.

      Here is an idea… How about producing massive amounts of DVDs, give them away online at cost, and pass them around to all our neighbors at no cost. We can call the dvd “TIME TO WAKE UP!”

      We need more idea’s like this.

      Report Post » rocktruth  
    • Sanity
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:44am

      I thought this was a discussion on Gays in the military, what on earth has that got to do with that diatribe of a post you seem to bring to every thread?

      Report Post »  
    • Freelancer
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:56am

      Sorry…. Anything at ALL from Alex Jones has ZERO credibility PERIOD!

      Report Post » Freelancer  
    • Dyllon
      Posted on September 23, 2010 at 1:59am

      Umm, your argument seems to be a bit of a red herring. I fail to see how redistribution of wealth has anything to do with the video presented in the article.

      Report Post » Dyllon  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:19am

    freakin libs ……….lucky i wasnt in charge id let em in the service, then put em on the front line wanna serve great get to it.

    now that i got my rant over if you keep your mouth shut there isnt an issue If you show up in a pink tutu in a male barracks well you might as well go home. freakin libs are liars and winy attention whores and we could do with much less of them. they are less than 20 % of the population why do we need to bend to them?.

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • realAmerican
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:50am

      Leftists make up more than 20% percent of the population you raging lunatic. Are you so homophobic because you‘re scared that you’re gay yourself?

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:20am

      I doubt that, RealAmerican. Homophobia is overstated. Most people that are “anti gay” are catagorized as homophobics when in fact that’s not even the case.
      Most anti gay people simply find it morally wrong. It goes against nature. That’s not a fear issue. And it’s certainly not a denial issue, gimme a break.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • flamedone1968
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:34am

      Did you have to say “bend to them” with this subject matter! LMAO
      I’m fine with “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” after all it’s work not a YMCA or a local park rest room.(yuck) As a representative of our armed forces when in uniform they are expected to maintain a certain conduct as most all of us are at our occupations. If I was to show up at work and start openly hitting on the women there I’d be disruptive and reprimanded if not out right fired… That is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” In other words this is not appropriate behavior at work. Enough said!

      Report Post » flamedone1968  
    • SGTTAZ67
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 6:54am

      To be honest with you, I don’t care if your gay or striaght. When you’re in uniform you keep your fly buttoned, do your duty, and what you do in the bedroom is your own business. I don’t wanna spend 4 or 6 hours in the hot Iraqi or Afghani sun listening to anyone talk about hwat they do in the sack with their chosen partner. I’ve know several gays in a career that started in 85. I don’t care. Keep it buttoned and do your duty.

      Report Post »  
    • Sanity
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:42am

      In the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great, [an army which was regarded as relatively successful in that it was never defeated], homosexuals played a key role. They were put in the front line and at the point of main infantry attack, why? simply because they were so highly regarded, and were adjudged to fight like demons. If you like, they were the marines of their day.

      Report Post »  
    • Brad Clyne
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:58am

      If we’re going to allow gays and lesbians to join the Armed Forces, which we do, and then spend hundreds of millions of dollars to train them, which we do, why kick them out when we discover that they are gay? That isn’t a sound fiscal policy.

      Don‘t Ask Don’t Tell should be eliminated and replaced with Who Cares. There are already policies in place to sanction members of our Armed Forces who display inappropriate sexual behavior and attention to their fellow Service Members. That ought to be enough to run our military, save us a ton of money, and allow all of us to move on to jobs and the deficit.

      Report Post » Brad Clyne  
    • Dyllon
      Posted on September 23, 2010 at 1:57am

      You don’t seem to understand what DADT entails. It requires that one not only tell a lie but also live the lie of being straight. Is that the government you want for this country?

      Report Post » Dyllon  
  • FieryRed
    Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:09am

    I think he was handling that quite well. He didn’t lose his temper and, in my opinion, he wasn’t testy at all! Was he supposed to be sweet and lovey dovey? How about if we turn this around and talk about how nasty the reporters were getting . HOW ABOUT THAT?

    Report Post » FieryRed  
    • rocktruth
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 2:21am

      I agree he handled himself quite well. But he was getting a little annoyed with the reporter who refused to know the facts. Like McCain said. “It’s not the policy”… Stupid reporter, which part of that don’t you get?

      Report Post » rocktruth  
    • PostProgressiveAmerican
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:22am

      I know I am in the minority on this one…

      Here’s the deal. Homosexuals are not all cross-dressers, pedophiles, rapists or anything else. Yes, they engage in a behavior that most find objectionable and immoral, but that is their choice. I would propose that we take a position of tolerance…which is not acceptance. Live and let live.

      We see too many of the gay activists dressed in tutus which has skewed our opinion of the typical homosexual. Most are otherwise normal, hard-working individuals and should be allowed the opportunity to pursue the American dream. Now, I do not want to see them ‘making out’ on the street, but I also don’t want to see heterosexuals do it, either.

      Homosexuals will not try to ‘convert’ other soldiers, they will not try to rape another soldier, and no one will ‘catch it’ be being near them. You can argue the issue on moral grounds but, in the end, isn’t that between the individual and God?

      Homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military, to fight for their country, which they have done and are currently doing. The argument that heterosexual soldiers will be less capable because they need to watch their backs is ridiculous. I served in the military and I know several soldiers that served with me who were gay. They were professionals and served with honor.

      Let them serve, as Americans.

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
    • adr705
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:02am

      FieryRed is RIGHT ON! National Review must be trying to cater to the queens. It’s the new morality, you know. John McCain is a decent man standing up to pressure with grace and fortitude…a great example for every one of us to follow…except when he’s crossing the aisle.

      Report Post » adr705  
    • IntheKnowOG
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:09am

      PostProgressiveAmerican
      I agree, let them serve. Consider this though “We see too many of the gay activists dressed in tutus ”….That’s the root of the issue. It’s the same with “moderate Islam”, If they won’t clean up their house, what makes you think they won’t sully ours? I have a few friends who who be booted under DADT. The difference is, they have class and their sexual cravings are their business, not anyone elses. The fight about DADT is stupid as the day is long. It is an attempt by the left to define yet another narrative to distract the voters. Why now? Is it really that important to cause such an uproar over a policy that affects 1 percent of the military? I think not. It’s a game.

      Report Post » IntheKnowOG  
    • zoepatty
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:09am

      LOL…well Rocket truth, I kinda see your point….he was basically saying you stupid reporter….but then she was stupid to keep saying the same thing over and over. Kudos to McCain, he handled it well.

      Report Post »  
    • PostProgressiveAmerican
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:10am

      Sorry for getting diverted, which was the whole goal of this rider to the bill. Nothing more than pre-election politics to divert attention from the economy and to provide ammo for Leftists to call Conservatives bigots…
      We need legislation to stop the addition of unrelated riders to bills – each issue should stand on its own and be voted for or against based on its own merit.

      Besides, regardless of what the people believe or want, things are being set in motion to make it happen. Reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/us/24benefit.html

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
    • zoepatty
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:15am

      PostProgressiveAmerican, homosexuals do serve their country in the military right now…..I guess I don’t see the need to know their sexual orientation. All I care about as a civilian is can they or for that matter can hetrosexuals defend this country….and the answer is yes they can. So leave your sexual orientation out of it. So tired of everyone needing to push their agenda on us.

      Report Post »  
    • IntheKnowOG
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:44am

      PostProgressiveAmerican
      Regarding this: “We need legislation to stop the addition of unrelated riders to bills – each issue should stand on its own and be voted for or against based on its own merit.”

      I wholeheartedly concur. Imagine going to Mcdonalds and ordering a Big Mac and bieng forced to get fires and a Coke as well? Dirty Harry and The Wicked Witch of the Left seem to think that’s good business. I guess that’s why everything the Fed touches fails…..

      Report Post » IntheKnowOG  
    • faktchekr
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:08am

      you’re right, it was the reporters that were rude, repeatedly asking the same question as though he were lying to them and would switch his answer.
      I served in the Navy for eight years during the late 80‘s and early 90’s, and I knew of one gay individual for certain. This individual would seek to be in the showers when a particular individual was in the shower. This is why gays in the service will not work…not all gays are rude like this one was but you can be sure that it will create constant problems….It is not a matter of whether gays can do the work, it is a matter of privacy. People in the service live, bathe and sleep in VERY close quarters and it is ridiculous to expect a straight person to submit to undressing and showering on a daily basis in front of an individual they know is gay and possibly attracted to them…you might as well force women to undress and shower in front of men and vice versa…it would be chaos…who wants someone they aren’t attracted to watching them undress and bathe? Wake up people…I could care less if someone is gay, but if men/women have to undress in front of fellow shipmates, and they find out one is gay and watching the rest…there will be problems, and it will get ugly…this is why it is best for gays to serve in the closet or not at all.

      Report Post » faktchekr  
    • Areyoukiddingme
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 8:24am

      If its not broke don’t try and fix it…
      Why don’t women and men in the military share quarters? If you break it down its because of sex. So if the military is going to recognize gays i can see that separate quarters will needed to be made for gays which in turn will cost more, cause unneeded separation, etc. I understand that people want to be recolonized, but i feel this will back-fire.

      Report Post » Areyoukiddingme  
    • clouviere
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 10:37am

      Once again what this is about isn’t what this is about. What people are not understanding is that this has absolutely nothing to do with DADT or gays in the military. It’s not even about the military. It’s about the gay culture and the gay power struggle. They are an organized force that his hell bent on power. They want it in the education system. They are fighting for it in legislation. They want to redefine marriage. They want to serve openly in the military…this isn’t about the right to serve this is about the thirst for power. And all of the rest of it is a smoke screen. Please wake up. We are beset by enemies at all sides. They are all after the same thing…power and control over us. They want to dictate or lives to either protect their own or to benefit from us.

      Simply put the Gay activist, the Marxist, the Socialist, the Communist, the Islamist and the Environmentalist all have the same goal…subjigation of us to their will and power.

      The bottom line is that they will win this fight until we figure this out…and the first clue is that it isn’t about DADT.

      cl

      Report Post »  
    • edward56
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 11:32am

      Change We Can Believe In

      When did it change?
      Those who once opposed intolerance can no longer tolerate the opposition
      When did it change?
      Those who once protested for openness, now only hide behind the doors of privilege and power
      When did it change?
      Those who once spoke of brotherly love; unconditional regard, now only regard hatred of dissent
      When did it change?
      Those whose hands once formed peace signs, now only hold or accommodate the club of intimidation
      When did it change?
      Those who once called for balance, have now been swallowed up in bias
      When did it change?
      Those who once called and clamored for the truth, now obediently purchase and promote the party’s lie
      When did it change?
      Those who once raged against the machine have now become its’ grinding gears of conformity
      When did it change?
      Those who once pledged love for this nation and her God, now proudly and loudly denounce them both
      When did it change?
      Those who once would not settle for anything less than breathing the sweet air off courage and victory, are now content to only lap up the excrements of appeasement and defeat
      When did it change?
      Those who once benefited from our quality of life; our “Dream,” are now dedicated to dismantling it
      When did it change?
      When did the patriot become the profane and the profane become the ideal
      When did it change?

      Edward N. Middleton copyright 7/27/10

      Report Post »  
    • rocktruth
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 3:45pm

      clouviere you’re absolutely correct. It’s will never stop until everything is completely backwards.

      Report Post » rocktruth  
    • Chris G
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 4:29pm

      McCain definitely has a temper…but he did NOT lose it in this case.

      Report Post » Chris G  
    • VegasGuy
      Posted on September 22, 2010 at 7:02pm

      I agree with FIERYRED. He certainly did not lose his temper. His comments did not even rise to the level of being, “testy.” He sounded firm in his answers and that was it.

      On the other hand, the reporter was badgering him a bit to get an answer to her question. But that’s what reporters are suppose to do.

      No harm, no foul.

      Report Post » VegasGuy  
    • Jess Owen
      Posted on September 23, 2010 at 12:36am

      Why is it that everybody forgets that it was Bill Clinton who gave us DADT? Bill Clinton was probably the most loved, by the left, President of all time. If DADT was fine when Clinton was in office, why isn’t it OK now?

      What is wrong with not asking somebody what their sexual orientation is? What is wrong with not telling somebody what your sexual orientation is?

      Let us not forget that the Military is a job. If I asked somebody at work if they are gay, that could be Sexual Harassment.

      Report Post »  
    • weezygirl
      Posted on September 23, 2010 at 1:41pm

      I agree, he was FIRMLY making his point, which I also know to be true.

      Report Post » weezygirl  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love