NationStates Jolt Archive

At a time when there is a shortage of Arabic and Farsi linguists and interpreters the military has discharged 26 people skilled in these talents because they are gay - because what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is far more important than national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_re_us/gays_military_linguists_5

Firing people because of their sexuality is gay :(

In conjunction with these firings, DHS seized large quantities of tea tree conditioner. When questioned about why the conditioner went missing from evidence, Ridge promised that he would celebrate his last days in office with a fabulous margarita party.

In retrospect, a "bilingual" joke would have been more appropriate.

This isn't something that occured at once. The article says that this number is collected from 1998, and that there is no year-by-year breakdown. I want more information before I can make a decision on this matter.

Firing people because of their sexual preferences is utterly untolerable. Looks like America is going downhill yet again. Dumbasses.

What is the US going to do if it ever gets into a war with the Polari speaking community?

This isn't something that occured at once. The article says that this number is collected from 1998, and that there is no year-by-year breakdown. I want more information before I can make a decision on this matter.

I see.

So firing Arabic and Farsi linguists prior to 911, when they could have had some impact on intelligence, is not as bad as firing them after when the need is all the greater? Or is it the other way around?

Please enlighten me as to when it is okay to fire otherwise qualified people who could contribute significantly to the security of the country because of what they do in the bedroom?

These people were discharged for their conduct, not for their homosexuality. Nice try.

These people were discharged for their conduct, not for their homosexuality. Nice try.
What did they do?

As a graduate of the DLI and the husband of a Graduate of the DLI who learned Arabic there, I can say that not all those discharged for homosexual conduct were homosexuals. While I was there in 1998, several people I know declared themselves as homosexuals as a reason to get out of the Army, because they did not like the Army. It is a fast out for the military.

What did they do?
Read the article, they violated the don't ask, don't tell policy that was forced thru by the Clintons.

It's necessary to eliminate homosexuality, feminism, secular humanism, and all those other things that are an affront to Jesus so that he will once again establish his veil of protection over the USA. That's the right way to stop terrorism.

Read the article, they violated the don't ask, don't tell policy that was forced thru by the Clintons.
dumb policy.

The US must hire homosexual translators. If we ever get in a war with San Francisco we'll need them.

"Sounds like steam escaping."

dumb policy.
In your opinion, maybe. doesn't change the fact that it is policy, they violated it, and were seperated from the army for it.

In your opinion, maybe. doesn't change the fact that it is policy, they violated it, and were seperated from the army for it.
It's like shooting your troops in the foot before sending them off to fight. It just doesn't make any sense to get rid of important intelligence assets like that just because some people are squeamish.

A dumb policy is not made any more legitimate simply because it is policy. That's like saying Jim Crow laws were forgiveable because that was the law at the time.

My advice to my fellow Americans: grow the fuck up.

The US must hire homosexual translators. If we ever get in a war with San Francisco we'll need them.

"Sounds like steam escaping."
...uhm this have anything to do with Rush Limbaugh's quote?
Just askin' ....
:confused:

We all know "military intelligence" is an oxymoron.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is bullshit. Clinton really pissed me off when he turned coward on the gays in the military bit.

A dumb policy is not made any more legitimate simply because it is policy. That's like saying Jim Crow laws were forgiveable because that was the law at the time.
Foisting a policy of allowing gays into the militarywhen the vast majority of service-members don't want them there is repulsive. Imagine the backlash.

My advice to my fellow Americans: grow the fuck up.
Take your own advice.

hello BUSH is running the government. we are planning to invadea country with a real military while having our forces spread so thin we have all but started a draft to einforce the military.

IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

chewbacca is a wookie, a 7 foot tall hairy wookie, but he lives on ewok. ewoks are 2 foot tall fuzzy little critter. chewbacca lives on ewok with 2 foot tall teddy bears, IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

Foisting a policy of allowing gays into the militarywhen the vast majority of service-members don't want them there is repulsive. Imagine the backlash.

So you're saying that we arn't in any actual control over the military-that they do whatever the fuck they want, and we try to accomidate it?

Foisting a policy of allowing gays into the military when the vast majority of service-members don't want them there is repulsive. Imagine the backlash.

You are in good company. I imagine you agree with the Army's Adjunct General who said "the Army is not a sociological laboratory." He echoed your statement, saying the majority of soldiers have very "pronounced views" and that "military orders, fiat, or dicta, will not change their viewpoints."

Allowing these undesirables into the military, he went on, is "a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale."

That is exactly what the Army's Adjunct General said...on Dec 8, 1941, defending the military's segregation of blacks.

"The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its "don't ask, don't tell" policy."

Hmm.. In Malaysia you can be jailed. Not too sure about Iraq, Iran and some of those countries. Stoning perhaps?

Not that I have anything against gays.. but it's a fact.. Why do they need to publicly tell everybody that their gay? Sounds like ADD.

"The number of Arabic linguists discharged from the military for violating its "don't ask, don't tell" policy."

Hmm.. In Malaysia you can be jailed. Not too sure about Iraq, Iran and some of those countries. Stoning perhaps?

Not that I have anything against gays.. but it's a fact.. Why do they need to publicly tell everybody that their gay? Sounds like ADD.

Why do straight people need to talk about their husbands or wives and put pictures of their kids on their desk or hold hands in public? Why do they need to thrust their straightness in everyone's face?

BECAUSE IT IS PART OF WHO THEY ARE!!!

Why should gay people have to slink around as if who they are and whom they love is something dirty or shameful?

Americans may understand. Not necessarily people from another country.

Plus.. "Don't ask, Don't Tell".

Doesn't exactly says what the 26 soldiers did however.

Well, if we're talking about other countries- Israel allows openly gay people to serve in its military, doesn't seem to have suffered.

As for "the vast majority of soldiers not wanting gays in the army"- I seem to recall a lot of opposition to racial integration of the armed forces. Truman pushed it through anyway.

I am in the military, and I for one, dont want to have to look over my shoulder when I have to take a shower, because some dude might be checkin out my ass. Sexual harrassment is big in the military, and the rules are set to combat it, with openly gay people in the military, that will jsut make it worse.

I am in the military, and I for one, dont want to have to look over my shoulder when I have to take a shower, because some dude might be checkin out my ass. Sexual harrassment is big in the military, and the rules are set to combat it, with openly gay people in the military, that will jsut make it worse.

Grow a spine then.

For heaven's sake, if your military personel gets the jibberies from the thought that that openly gay person over there might be 'checking out their ass', I dread to think of what an actual war would do to you.

Grow a spine then.

For heaven's sake, if your military personel gets the jibberies from the thought that that openly gay person over there might be 'checking out their ass', I dread to think of what an actual war would do to you.

he's got a point - they would never dare to make women shower with hetero sexual men for this very reason. No-one wants to be seen as a sex object, and while its true that not all straight men would necessarily check out a girl in the shower, not all gay guys would check out other guys in the shower. however some would. could they bring in seperate showers for gays? no - that would be seen as discrimination.

Translators are vital intelligence assets. It's not everyone who can translate Pashtu or Farsi. If we have a few on our side we need to keep them so we can catch the next 9/11 before it happens. Then again, major terrorist attacks seem to help the republican party win elections, maybe it's not idiocy, it's a conspiracy.

he's got a point - they would never dare to make women shower with hetero sexual men for this very reason. No-one wants to be seen as a sex object, and while its true that not all straight men would necessarily check out a girl in the shower, not all gay guys would check out other guys in the shower. however some would. could they bring in seperate showers for gays? no - that would be seen as discrimination.
Here's an idea. Let the gays come out. Give them showers separate from the straight people. It's not seen as discrimination when women are given separate showers.

Here's an idea. Let the gays come out. Give them showers separate from the straight people. It's not seen as discrimination when women are given separate showers.


i'd be all for it but you could bet your arse someone would be up in arms about segregation.

Edit: not that i'd bet bet my arse with american military - they might try to fire a gay missile up it

At a time when there is a shortage of Arabic and Farsi linguists and interpreters the military has discharged 26 people skilled in these talents because they are gay - because what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is far more important than national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_re_us/gays_military_linguists_5

Time ran an article not very long ago with a breakdown of the jobs that the military had shortages in vs. the number of people in those jobs discharged for homosexuality. It was quite an eye-opener.

i'd be all for it but you could bet your arse someone would be up in arms about segregation.

Edit: not that i'd bet bet my arse with american military - they might try to fire a gay missile up it
In that case let everyone shower together. Men, women, gays, midgets, everyone. That way everyone gets ogled.

Meanwhile, the front page story in the Ottawa Sun today relates quite the opposite viewpoint on how some countries tackle this issue:


GAY AND lesbian army couples can now get married on military bases. The Canadian Forces has quietly drafted a policy calling for military chaplains to formally bless same-sex weddings. Guidelines -- considered "interim" until the federal government passes a law redefining marriage -- outline the process for pre-nuptial counselling and using the base chapel for same-sex ceremonies.

Col. Stan Johnstone, a military chaplain who helped draft the policy, said the guidelines reflect the primary role of ministering to all CF members and their families.

Johnstone said chaplains vary on personal convictions and theology, but don't discriminate against anyone in need of counsel.

The guidelines are "essentially a statement of the way the law is going. We don't put any expectations on people -- we expect them to function as we always do, according to the tenets of their church, their own conscience and the laws of the province," he said.

"No one is being put under any constraint to do something they wouldn't normally do."

The roughly 150 military chaplains who work on bases across the country aren't required to perform same-sex marriages if it's against their religious beliefs, but they have the responsibility to find a colleague to conduct the ceremony.

Johnstone said the chaplaincy is taking a "leading edge" on the issue as there is not yet a known request for a gay wedding on a base.

While documents obtained by the Sun under Access to Information refer to the need to "avoid embarrassment" to the Canadian Forces or the chaplain branch, Johnstone said the reference likely speaks to the necessity to keep superiors "in the know" on policy development.


NDP MP Libby Davies applauded the military chaplains' progressive, "sensitive" stand.

"This shows how while the Liberal government has dragged its feet for so long, every institution in the country is dealing with this. Gay marriage is a reality," she said.

But Derek Rogusky, VP of family policy for Focus on the Family, raised concerns about the ability to protect religious freedom and worried how the policy might create stress on bases.

"You already see the division across the country, and now you're going to bring that right on the base of a military, where cohesion and unity is a key aspect of their success," he said.

Grow a spine then.

For heaven's sake, if your military personel gets the jibberies from the thought that that openly gay person over there might be 'checking out their ass', I dread to think of what an actual war would do to you.

Strangely enough, I have met more than one member of the military who really didn't care.

One of the few men I have met who got kicked out for being gay (a Desert Storm vet now completely unable to get a job because of the "dishonorable" discharge he was handed) got along perfectly with those around them. Pretty much everyone knew he was gay, and pretty much everyone was fine with it. He didn't make a big deal out of it, and neither did they. Of course, his CO had a stick up his butt about it and eventually kicked him out for "admitted homosexuality" even though he had never discussed it with the CO in the first place.

he's got a point - they would never dare to make women shower with hetero sexual men for this very reason. No-one wants to be seen as a sex object, and while its true that not all straight men would necessarily check out a girl in the shower, not all gay guys would check out other guys in the shower. however some would. could they bring in seperate showers for gays? no - that would be seen as discrimination.

I thought the military was all about trusting your fellow soldiers? I can undress just fine in front of the men (gay or straight) I trust.

One thing about gay troops, you can count on them not to leave their buddy's behind.

Grow a spine then.

For heaven's sake, if your military personel gets the jibberies from the thought that that openly gay person over there might be 'checking out their ass', I dread to think of what an actual war would do to you.


My thought's exactly.

You train for months on month's to stare death in the eyeball and spit chaw in his face but you can't handle someone thinking you're attractive?

Pretty cowardly and back-asswards sounding to me.

Meanwhile, the front page story in the Ottawa Sun today relates quite the opposite viewpoint on how some countries tackle this issue:

If only it weren't so damn cold and full of hippies I'd be up their in a second. :p

One thing about gay troops, you can count on them not to leave their buddy's behind.

Buh-zing.

:p

What did they do?
they liked to have sex with other people of the same gender in their private time

they liked to have sex with other people of the same gender in their private time

And that means that the terrorists have already won.

Yup.

*nodnod*

Meanwhile, the front page story in the Ottawa Sun today relates quite the opposite viewpoint on how some countries tackle this issue:
Wow, does lend anything to the conversation except to prove that you have a compulsion to spam every american-related thread with some anti-american bullshit. Shaddap.

I had a gay roommate in the Army for a little while. I didn't like that very much. I went to DLI, where most of these fruits were probably kicked out. I knew of gays there, but only one got booted. I'm sure he initiated it. You've got to understand that you don't get kicked out for "being gay." You've got to get caught in the act or make a statement. I'm sure that few if any of those Arabic and Farsi linguists would've gradutated from their language program. The success rate for Arabic is somewhere around 35-50%. The guy I knew was learning Russian, and failing miserably. If he was doing great in school, I doubt he would've gotten out. At least not as soon as he did.

Think about it this way: you're failing your language program and facing disiplinary action if it's determined that you're not trying. If you fail the program, you'll have an opportunity to choose a new MOS (job). You might not have much to choose from. You enlisted to learn a language, now you want out and you're gay. What are you going to do?

The military's policy on homosexuality is practical. It might not be fair, but the military is never fair. If you want fairness, don't join the military.

I say good for the military.

I say good for the military.

You willing to enlist to take the place of these people you have relegated to second class citizenship status?

You willing to enlist to take the place of these people you have relegated to second class citizenship status?
You willing to enlist and maybe get a clue about what you are talking about?

My thought's exactly.

You train for months on month's to stare death in the eyeball and spit chaw in his face but you can't handle someone thinking you're attractive?

Pretty cowardly and back-asswards sounding to me.


Then why is sexual harressment such an issue in the military?? Why cant the females in the military just look the other way when someones whistles? Tell them they are being too sensitive and keep working, and tell me what they tell you.

Navy ships have very little room, so making every bathroom unisex would help, but that is not going to happen. Why? One female cries fowl about how she was starred at while she was taking a shower, and it made her feel uncomfortable and the people who were in the bathroom, would get in trouble. Thats why females and males are split up in the military. We are sexual beings and the military knows that. The military doesnt not have the space nor the money to split the troops up anymore.

You willing to enlist and maybe get a clue about what you are talking about?

Please enlighten me (I can make no sense of your post at all).

hello BUSH is running the government. we are planning to invadea country with a real military while having our forces spread so thin we have all but started a draft to einforce the military.

IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE

chewbacca is a wookie, a 7 foot tall hairy wookie, but he lives on ewok. ewoks are 2 foot tall fuzzy little critter. chewbacca lives on ewok with 2 foot tall teddy bears, IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE
I dont know where you were going with this rant but the dont ask dont tell policies were put in place before bush. (I dont agree with them but I dont see how we can blame him for that peticular policy either)

It's necessary to eliminate homosexuality, feminism, secular humanism, and all those other things that are an affront to Jesus so that he will once again establish his veil of protection over the USA. That's the right way to stop terrorism.

Speaking as a christian, I'd rather take my chances with militant muslims than militant christians.

Militiant Muslims will just try to kill me. Militant christians will try to save me. :(

Speaking as a christian, I'd rather take my chances with militant muslims than militant christians.

Militiant Muslims will just try to kill me. Militant christians will try to save me. :(
*runs away from all the violent "saving"*

Read the article, they violated the don't ask, don't tell policy that was forced thru by the Clintons.

So they weren't fired for being gay, they were fired for admitting they were gay. That is certainly world class sophistry if I every heard it. The whole logic of national security exclusion of gays is that they are prone to blackmail. If they openly admit they are gay they are not prone to balckmail. It is only the government forcing them to keep it secret that makes them prone to blackmail. If the government simply removed its anti-gay rules, the security threat would be removed.

Well, Cheney's daughter can't join the army then ...

Prior to Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" order, there were plenty of gays in the military, some of them openly so.

Like any other conditions that "might" get you thrown out of the military, it was up to your local commander whether or not to do so.

You can be thrown out for being overweight, too.

So, if you're an asshole, they'll look through the book for a reason.

I knew dozens of openly gay men and lesbian women. Everyone knew. No one was being thrown out.

But, one day, Clinton gives an "order".

You should understand that in the military, commanders have incredible discretion to make their own policy - but they are not allowed ANY exceptions in the case of an "order". They must obey it explicitly.

Because neither Clinton, nor anyone on his staff were ex-military, they did not understand this. They were policy wonks, not versed in the implications of an "order".

So he gives the "don't ask, don't tell" order. This is to prevent a commander from engaging in a "witch hunt" for homosexuals. If you figure that most commanders were not engaged in witch hunts, and that many gays worked for such commanders, then what happened next should not be a surprise.

In the first few years after the order, more gays and lesbians were thrown out of the services than in all of the years that the US military has been in existence. Thousands of people. Because Clinton made it mandatory.

Imagine the common situation. You're a commander. You have five or six people who you know are gay in your unit because they've told you before. You don't really care, because you have nothing against gays, and you don't want to lose them because they're good soldiers.

Now the order comes down. According to the order, these people have told you (and everyone else) that they are gay. You have no option but to throw them out of the Army, because Clinton gave "an order". Orders have no options. And they cannot be disobeyed.

While this may have spared a handful of gays from the "witch hunt", it threw out far, far more.

A really, really stupid order. Not even the Republicans could have thought of something so insidious.

he's got a point - they would never dare to make women shower with hetero sexual men for this very reason. No-one wants to be seen as a sex object, and while its true that not all straight men would necessarily check out a girl in the shower, not all gay guys would check out other guys in the shower. however some would. could they bring in seperate showers for gays? no - that would be seen as discrimination.

Well, that's wrong too. Women and men should not be segrated. Unisex showers wouldn't foster sexual harrasment so much as creating a new sense of commradariebetween service members of opposite genders.

The real problem is that the military answers to a civilian government. The military would be much more efficient if it were seperate from the government, able to opperate on its own and declare war as it sees fit, not acting at the whims of polititians.

Meanwhile, the front page story in the Ottawa Sun today relates quite the opposite viewpoint on how some countries tackle this issue:

You know, with the US military spread out figting the war on terrorism, the US is very succeptable to a ground invasion by Canada. Now might be a good time for them to try that.

You know, with the US military spread out figting the war on terrorism, the US is very succeptable to a ground invasion by Canada. Now might be a good time for them to try that.
now that would be something to see. headlines in every paper "Canda invades the United States!"
subheading: "People throw roses at the invaders"

sean hannity appears on tv speaking to the american people to take up arms..from an undisclosed location that looks like its in the mountains

I'm sure the Canadian Army would run out of money and working equipment long before they went 50 miles into the US.

That's why you send the troops in undersupplied. ITs called pilliaging. If you live off of your enemy you save the costs of transporting resources to the front lines.

The Us i bet will die by 2030. They are going downhill without brakes at the bottom the will ; get hit by a car OR get hit by a car and trampled by a elephant

Pillaging is good.

At a time when there is a shortage of Arabic and Farsi linguists and interpreters the military has discharged 26 people skilled in these talents because they are gay - because what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is far more important than national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_re_us/gays_military_linguists_5

(bump)

The Us i bet will die by 2030. They are going downhill without brakes at the bottom the will ; get hit by a car OR get hit by a car and trampled by a elephant

Fat chance.

"You know, with the US military spread out figting the war on terrorism, the US is very succeptable to a ground invasion by Canada. Now might be a good time for them to try that."

LOL that would be funny to see, hmm then again i would get conscripted into said army...

At a time when there is a shortage of Arabic and Farsi linguists and interpreters the military has discharged 26 people skilled in these talents because they are gay - because what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is far more important than national security.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050114/ap_on_re_us/gays_military_linguists_5


Sounds really terrible, don't it? Except that well over half of the "gay" people discharged more than likely violated the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy just before getting sent to Iraq in order to get out of going. Hmmm... go to Iraq and possibly get shot at and killed, say I'm gay and get the heck out. Especially now that the discharges are "general discharges" and you get to keep veterans benefits. Of course, you can always do the drug use route, but that gets you a "dishonorable" now and possible time in Levenworth. Yeah, I can see being "gay" becoming very popular amongst folks who don't want to stay in any longer.

As a combat vet, I only care if the person can go their job. The best mechanic I ever met in the Army was pretty openly gay, and our commander's driver was out and out openly lesbian. So what? They did their jobs and we didn't care. Don't ask/Don't tell killed that.

I say change it and let gays in. And it will close the exit doors on the little cowards who slurped at Uncle Sam's trough for years and only became "gay" to get out once put in danger.

Yes, I'm saying there are people faking homosexuality in order to get out of combat. surprised?

Yes, I'm saying there are people faking homosexuality in order to get out of combat. surprised?

Not surprised at all. Just take a count of the single female soldiers who intentionally got pregnant in order to become non-deployable.

Saw one pull a train in order to get pregnant.

Not surprised at all. Just take a count of the single female soldiers who intentionally got pregnant in order to become non-deployable.

Saw one pull a train in order to get pregnant.
What did she look like and is the video for sale?

Fat chance.
oh yeah all the blind patriotism and jingoism combined with the inevitable collapse of the dollar and the invading as many countries as possible in as little time as possible, yeah teh us will live for bloody ever

oh yeah all the blind patriotism and jingoism combined with the inevitable collapse of the dollar and the invading as many countries as possible in as little time as possible, yeah teh us will live for bloody ever
The world doesn't deserve to exist without the USA. If we are on the verge of collapse we will nuke everybody.

oh yeah all the blind patriotism and jingoism combined with the inevitable collapse of the dollar and the invading as many countries as possible in as little time as possible, yeah teh us will live for bloody ever

Obviously, you have never been here. I hear the EU is more worried about the devaluation of the dollar. Apparently, EU goods may become far too expensive for anyone to buy, and that will cause EU industries to flee the EU.

Oooh - sounds like the US during the 1990s - when major industries - even minor ones like call centers - fled the US. At least we don't have major unemployment here. The EU already has some countries with double-digit unemployment. That's going to get worse over the next few years with the devaluation of the dollar.

I didn't hear you complain when Clinton was invading and bombing, and his country count was seven, IIRC. Some of them had only committed the offense of running a pharmaceutical plant and he didn't ask the UN for permission, so I don't see how things have changed for the worse as far as foreign policy goes.

i dont recall the unilateral invasion and occupation of half a dozen nations during clinton's time. right now we are already stretching our military in iraq and afghanistan and we want to go invade and occupy some more countries?

BRILLIANT!

i dont recall the unilateral invasion and occupation of half a dozen nations during clinton's time. right now we are already stretching our military in iraq and afghanistan and we want to go invade and occupy some more countries?

BRILLIANT!

According to Michael Moore, your unimpeachable source for the Democrats and anyone who hates Bush, Clinton is "the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan, having ended welfare as we know it, and made unprovoked attacks on seven different nations".

Sudan, Serbia, Somalia, don't those ring a bell? There are more, according to Moore.

I think the whole Sudan thing as a WMD claim by Clinton, IIRC. But, others think it was him having a premature problem with a blue dress.

According to Michael Moore, your unimpeachable source for the Democrats and anyone who hates Bush

mm biased, uninformed neocon babble. no surprise there


i think you missed what i said, let me try again though i doubt it will get through your thick neocon skull

we have invaded and OCCUPIED 2 different nations, at least 1 on false pretenses, and not only that but the occupation is obviously stretching our military too thin, and we want to occupy and invade MORE countries that can actually fight back or have 3rd party countries that will fight back for them

Sounds really terrible, don't it? Except that well over half of the "gay" people discharged more than likely violated the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy just before getting sent to Iraq in order to get out of going. Hmmm... go to Iraq and possibly get shot at and killed, say I'm gay and get the heck out. Especially now that the discharges are "general discharges" and you get to keep veterans benefits. Of course, you can always do the drug use route, but that gets you a "dishonorable" now and possible time in Levenworth. Yeah, I can see being "gay" becoming very popular amongst folks who don't want to stay in any longer.

As a combat vet, I only care if the person can go their job. The best mechanic I ever met in the Army was pretty openly gay, and our commander's driver was out and out openly lesbian. So what? They did their jobs and we didn't care. Don't ask/Don't tell killed that.

I say change it and let gays in. And it will close the exit doors on the little cowards who slurped at Uncle Sam's trough for years and only became "gay" to get out once put in danger.

Yes, I'm saying there are people faking homosexuality in order to get out of combat. surprised?

(a) You obviously didn't read the article, as this was talking about discharges before 9/11 and thus had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.

(b) This is a trend we have seen for a while. The more intellectual areas (where you are actually much less likely to be shot at on a regular basis) have had the most homosexuals kicked out (and they don't actually have to say anything to be accused of violating the don't ask/don't tell policy). These are also the areas in which the military has the most marked shortages.

mm biased, uninformed neocon babble. no surprise there


i think you missed what i said, let me try again though i doubt it will get through your thick neocon skull

we have invaded and OCCUPIED 2 different nations, at least 1 on false pretenses, and not only that but the occupation is obviously stretching our military too thin, and we want to occupy and invade MORE countries that can actually fight back or have 3rd party countries that will fight back for them

So you believe Clinton's claim that Sudan had WMD, and that his cruise missile attack on a pharmaceutical plant (later visited in person by CNN) was completely justified, even though he didn't ask the UN for permission?

Or that Clinton did a great job in Somalia?

Not a neocon. Just a political skeptic. I don't see Bush as any worse, really. He seems to have better control of his privates, though.

According to Michael Moore, your unimpeachable source for the Democrats and anyone who hates Bush, Clinton is "the greatest Republican President since Ronald Reagan, having ended welfare as we know it, and made unprovoked attacks on seven different nations".

Sudan, Serbia, Somalia, don't those ring a bell? There are more, according to Moore.

I think the whole Sudan thing as a WMD claim by Clinton, IIRC. But, others think it was him having a premature problem with a blue dress.

Actually, if the far right had not been so rabid in trying to tear down Clinton we liberals would have been the ones to go after him.

Clinton pushed through the pro-big business, anti-environmental, anti-labor NAFTA legislation, the atrocious Telecommunications bill (resulting in the growing trend toward media monopoly), the anti-poor Welfare Reform Act, signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, and implemented the prejudicial "Don't Ask, Don’t Tell" military policy, which has resulted in more gay people being expelled from the military than under the previous policy.

Clinton did almost nothing for labor or the poor (it took him seven years as president before he even visited an Indian Reservation), sold out Haiti, turned Africa policy over to a Bush appointee, put Middle East policy in the hands of Israel's lobbyists, maintained full funding for the DEA, sold out grazing and mineral rights on public land, and the list goes on for this supposed "liberal" president.

However, people like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Mellon-Scaife, and all the other rabid conservative barking dogs managed to turn him into a martyr.

in short, all the neocon right wing idiots dug their own graves by trying to pin immorality on him

in short, all the neocon right wing idiots dug their own graves by trying to pin immorality on him

well, all the deaniac moore-loving left wing idiots are digging their own graves by trying to pin Jesus on Bush.

way to go, guys. I counted 11 states that slammed gays so hard they'll never get up again.

well, all the deaniac moore-loving left wing idiots are digging their own graves by trying to pin Jesus on Bush.

way to go, guys. I counted 11 states that slammed gays so hard they'll never get up again.

I am still not convinced that it wasn't the Republicans who engineered to have gay marriage come up as an issue for this election. The only articles I had read about gay marriage prior to the election cycle were by gay people OPPOSED to the concept. They saw marriage as a flawed heterosexual institution they really wanted no part of.

Then all of a sudden gay marriage was popping up all over the country as an issue. Now the election is over, who is talking about it?

I think gay rights advocates and those on the left fell for a cleverly engineered strategy created by Karl Rove and Co. I can see his fingerprints all over this.

I am still not convinced that it wasn't the Republicans who engineered to have gay marriage come up as an issue for this election. The only articles I had read about gay marriage prior to the election cycle were by gay people OPPOSED to the concept. They saw marriage as a flawed heterosexual institution they really wanted no part of.

Then all of a sudden gay marriage was popping up all over the country as an issue. Now the election is over, who is talking about it?

I think gay rights advocates and those on the left fell for a cleverly engineered strategy created by Karl Rove and Co. I can see his fingerprints all over this.

It was brought up quite a bit in church, especially fundamentalist churches. It caused a tidal wave of people to register at the last minute in Ohio, at church-sponsored registration drives. They packed buses with people.

I heard it in church every Sunday for the two months preceding the election.

Engineered, maybe. But it was a terrible blow to the Democrats. Unless there's a Federal amendment to guarantee the right to gay marriage, it's never going to be the law of the land. And now the Democratic Party is going to see being pro-homosexual rights as a high voltage third rail, especially at the national level and at the state level in most states.

I am still not convinced that it wasn't the Republicans who engineered to have gay marriage come up as an issue for this election. The only articles I had read about gay marriage prior to the election cycle were by gay people OPPOSED to the concept. They saw marriage as a flawed heterosexual institution they really wanted no part of.

Anyone who has actually followed this issue for a significant amount of time knows better. This was an issue back in the Clinton era, hence the attack on the Constitution known as DOMA. You were apparently only paying attention to rather biased sources prior to the election.

Then all of a sudden gay marriage was popping up all over the country as an issue. Now the election is over, who is talking about it?

Well, there is a case in Florida right now to have a marriage from Mass. recognized. It has been turned down, but the claimants are planning appeal. This was in the news today.

way to go, guys. I counted 11 states that slammed gays so hard they'll never get up again.

Actually, the GA law will most likely fall, as the state legislature intentionally attempted to trick voters into voting for it by leaving out over half of what the actual amendment does. Any higher court would have to have serious mental disabilities to uphold it.

Please enlighten me (I can make no sense of your post at all).
Then you wouldn't even qualify for the Infantry.

I am still not convinced that it wasn't the Republicans who engineered to have gay marriage come up as an issue for this election. The only articles I had read about gay marriage prior to the election cycle were by gay people OPPOSED to the concept. They saw marriage as a flawed heterosexual institution they really wanted no part of.

Then all of a sudden gay marriage was popping up all over the country as an issue. Now the election is over, who is talking about it?

I think gay rights advocates and those on the left fell for a cleverly engineered strategy created by Karl Rove and Co. I can see his fingerprints all over this.
It only became an issue when you liberals shot yourselves in the foot in Massachusetts. It was pretty much below everybody's radar screen until the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to legislate gay marriage into its state constitution, then San Francisco got into the act. It was seen as another attempt by the left wing to force its morality on the rest of the country.

As to the case mentioned to get the Massachusetts marriage recognized, that is the perfect example of the need for a definition of marriage in a constitutional amendment, as I could see SCOTUS applying the full faith and credit clause to enforce Massachusetts law in all other states.

It was seen as another attempt by the left wing to force its morality on the rest of the country.

You can't honestly mean that sentance. You can't. There's no way a living human being could ever say that and mean it. You have the brain power to move, breathe, and eat. There's simply no way you can say that sentance and mean it.

You can't honestly mean that sentance. You can't. There's no way a living human being could ever say that and mean it. You have the brain power to move, breathe, and eat. There's simply no way you can say that sentance and mean it.
I have the brain power to know that "sentance" is spelled "sentence", and the brain power to request that you provide a logical rebuttal rather than inflammatory rhetoric.

As to the case mentioned to get the Massachusetts marriage recognized, that is the perfect example of the need for a definition of marriage in a constitutional amendment, as I could see SCOTUS applying the full faith and credit clause to enforce Massachusetts law in all other states.

Oh No! SCOTUS might uphold the Constitution! Oh the horror!

Oh No! SCOTUS might uphold the Constitution! Oh the horror!

I still don't know why Bush gets the blame for this policy. It was an official "order" given by President Clinton. I don't recall a lot of Democrats complaining about how Clinton was being stupid when he gave that order.

Now, it did screw a lot of homosexuals out of the Army in far greater numbers than before, but that's not the military's fault. It's the concept of an "order" that Clinton didn't understand.

Bush, if he's as stupid as you say he is, probably thinks that "wow, I don't want to piss off any Democrats that I might need to get a solid majority in Congress, so I'm not going to countermand one of Clinton's core orders he gave to the military".

You should have been bitching when Clinton made the order.

I still don't know why Bush gets the blame for this policy. It was an official "order" given by President Clinton. I don't recall a lot of Democrats complaining about how Clinton was being stupid when he gave that order.

Now, it did screw a lot of homosexuals out of the Army in far greater numbers than before, but that's not the military's fault. It's the concept of an "order" that Clinton didn't understand.

Bush, if he's as stupid as you say he is, probably thinks that "wow, I don't want to piss off any Democrats that I might need to get a solid majority in Congress, so I'm not going to countermand one of Clinton's core orders he gave to the military".

You should have been bitching when Clinton made the order.

(a) We were discussing DOMA, not the don't ask/don't tell order.
(b) I am not a Democrat, and partisan bullshit means nothing to me.
(c) I *did* complain, on both counts.
(d) Neither were "core orders" given by Clinton. For the most part, they were cop-outs specifically designed to appease Republicans and attempt to push through other bills.

You should have been bitching when Clinton made the order.
we were. if you think we weren't, then you simply failed to pay attention. that's not our fault ;).

(a) We were discussing DOMA, not the don't ask/don't tell order.
(b) I am not a Democrat, and partisan bullshit means nothing to me.
(c) I *did* complain, on both counts.
(d) Neither were "core orders" given by Clinton. For the most part, they were cop-outs specifically designed to appease Republicans and attempt to push through other bills.

I remember seeing the don't ask don't tell in writing. It was a direct order given in writing and signed by Clinton.

Orders in writing are not subject to interpretation, and a commander is left with no alternative but to follow it. So, for the majority of gays in the military who, at the commander's discretion, were being ignored and allowed to remain in service, this meant that the commander HAD NO CHOICE but to throw them out.

Clinton was an ignoramus when it came to military concepts. He could have done something else to appease Republicans. But, in his ignorance, he gave an "order".

we were. if you think we weren't, then you simply failed to pay attention. that's not our fault ;).
Considering the order went out way back in the first half of the nineties, please excuse someone who didn't notice you bitching about Clinton on this internet forum. :rolleyes: The vast majority of Clinton supporters just went along with thier tongues hanging out when clinton forced this policy on us.