Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

I am sick about hearing how the Dems need one Republican.
>
BS if they need a Republican vote then sell their program to the public.. They are not doing it. They allow themselves to be shouted down, the subject changed, or whatever. I ain’t buying it anymore. The Dems just do not want to do it. It is all political fodder for our consumption.

About eight-in-ten Americans, and six-in-ten Republicans, favor ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and allowing gays to serve. Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/25/cnn-poll-nearly-8-in-10-favor-gays-in-the-military/?fbid=M7Ncnr_bzZi
-
Yet it’s too controversial.
-
Does any Republican know anything about anything?

It’s easier to try and sell their programs to other corrupted politicians than the public. They stopped listening last summer to the Washington nonsense.

I think I mentioned the other day that some of the last bastions of homophobia exist in the locker room and the military.

Shocking, the “moderate” Lindsey blocking DADT repeal.
.
Lindsey could have been the Nixon going to China on this.
.
Or maybe Nixon going to Yorba Linda.

The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hit a speed bump today in the Senate with Lindsey Graham … coming out…
.
I thought that sentence was going to end another way.

“Yet it’s too controversial”

For who? You have a demo Prez with a Demo House and Senate. It’s not controversial its gutless pols.

==
“Does any Republican know anything about anything?”

No, only liberals do. If you doubt that just ask them they will tell you.

Why do Republicans filibuster EVERYTHING?

They really are the Party of No. And the only reason appears that they want to block the Obama Administration from achieving anything, regardless of the merits.

And Lindsey Graham of all people blocking DADT is especially ironic. As Karl Rove once said about Valerie Plame, this makes Lindsey Graham’s personal life fair game now (it wasn’t true for Plame but it sure is true for Graham).

The question is not so much which homophobic GOPers are going to come out of the closet eventually but rather which ones will not turn out to be closet cases.

JNS, your quote from Lindsey Graham seems to directly contradict what Scherer told us yesterday:

{from Scherer}:
In short, the Lieberman proposal will put control over the decision about policy for gays in the military back in the hands of the military, where the leadership has already endorsed a change.

vs.

{from Lindsey}
This so-called compromise would repeal the legislation first then receive input from the military.

Which statement is true? I’m sure that as a reporter concerned that her readers understand the issues (and not just the politics on the issues), it won’t be hard for you to tell us who was lying in this case.

Lieberman’s office tells me that they already have one Republican on board: Susan Collins

My prediction: Bait and switch.

Why on earth would you suspect that?

As a former enlisted & officer in the military I see a major problem with gays in the military. 1/ is the COMFORT ZONE w/ the 98% of the norm & the possibility of someone who is gay and above you in rank. the military has a chain of command policy and there could be serious problems w/ a straight being caught in a precarious position w/ someone who out ranks them. I have read about gays in the military over the past several hundred years and it has always been a very big problem. I served early in Vietnam, was wounded twice & spent over 3 yrs total in various v.a.hosp’s w/ 38 major surgerys. I have seen instances where someone who was gay caused problems w/ a straight and it caused the rest of the unit to take sides and not work well together.I personally think that this is a terrible decision on Obama’s part, but what else is new. I still hope that ret Gen Colin Powell will run next time, I would assist anyway that I could on his behalf.

Gen. Colin L. Powell, who as the nation’s top military officer in the 1990s opposed allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, switched gears today and threw his support behind efforts to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law he helped shepherd in.

Stephen Chernin/Associated Press

Gen. Colin L. Powell in December.“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”

Boy you sound just like John McCain! You are not him?

During a radio broadcast, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association explained:
>
So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn’t the Germans, didn’t the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals.
>
TPM
.
Well there you go, some more of that Hitler, commie, socialist stuff.

Fischer is seen at the airport with a “helper” from Rent-a-Boy in three…two…

Essentially, they’re both right. The debate is merely when Congress will act. Lieberman’s amendment says that when the recommendation comes through, Congress will consider it as law versus waiting for the recommendation and then endorsing it. They’re essentially pre-approving whatever the Pentagon decides so as to expedite the process in December and have it go into effect immediately. Here’s the text of Lieberman’s amendment:
http://washingtonindependent.com/85609/the-text-of-liebermans-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal

they shouldnt change the law. it was put in affect to protect gays. can you imagian the gay bashing that will go on if the policy is changed? im a dem that agrees with republicans 100% on this.

This is one example where a real vast majority of Americans support one thing and the fake vast majority of Americans want something else. Again, they pretend the minority is the majority.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/listen_to_the_american_people.html
.
The public doesn’t need convincing. A large majority, including Republicans support repeal of DADT. What the Dems need to do is to let the public know that Reps are standing in the way of repeal and that what the Reps are doing is unpatriotic, unAmerican, and harmful to the military. Make the Reps the enemy of the good.

My lord. How does anyone affiliate with these crazies. That includes the radicals and theocrats and manipulative in the Republican Party.

ginger: You underestimate the military. There were fears of violence when blacks were integrated into the services. Newt Gingrich and others mused on the dangers of women serving in combat. Has there been violence against blacks and women who serve. Yes. But they experience violence outside of the military.
The military has discipline and will adjust.

What will happen to our straight servicemen when gay servicemen start acting all gay while sharing living quarters, bathrooms and everything else? Very Bad Idea. We are the U.S.A. Please do not let us loose our values and dignity by letting gays in our military. Gays deserve respect, but straight servicemen deserve it even more while serving their country.

As a retired enlisted nurse (91C), I had daily dealings with gay troops in the 70′s and 89′s. My last unit I estimate was 40 to 60% gay and lesbian. Some were my supervisors (outranked me), some were peers, and some I supervised. In the 5 years that I was in my last unit there were only two incidents that led to problems. One was a nurse anestnatist (? never did learn to spell that one) who was caught fondling a patient of the same sex, while the patient was under. This NA was allowed to retire rather than face courts martial. The other was a closeted gay who was rebuffed by another closeted gay, and attempted suicide. In doing so, both were outed.

I have been “hit on” by one gay troop who accepted a respectful “No, thank you.” And every gay troop that I had daily contact with were knowledgable about their job, perforrmed their duties well, and did not “play” on duty.

Would I have gone to war with them? Yes, without exception. DADT is about the biggest hypocracy there is, because gay troops have been in the American military since the Revolution, and they have served well and honorably.

And, No, I am not gay.

“My lord. How does anyone affiliate with these crazies. That includes the radicals and theocrats and manipulative in the Republican Party”

You are right there are no crazies on the liberal side.. Catastrophically Deluded but not crazy.

Keep telling yourself that.

You mean like HC reform and AZ immigration law?

For all of the harping about Repubs being against the removal of DADT, let’s not forget this was placed into law by Ron Dellums, an anti-war liberal zealot and Bill Clinton a democrat President.

Once again it’s the Demos demonstrating their bigotry.

I don’t think it is so much a Dem or Rep prejudice problem, as much as it is a sign of changing times. When I enlisted in 68, there were classes about espionage that heavily covered sexual intimidation used to “turn” an American soldier into a Soviet spy. Straight and homosexual contacts were used in these movies. The best comeback to a spymaster threatening to go to a commander and exposing the soldier would have been, “My other lover IS my commander.” But I never heard of that happening.

Those of my generation and before were brought up in a homophobic atmosphere, and our Congress people are of that generation. I was surprised that Clinton endorsed DADT, but I think that he may not have had much of a choice. When we replace the old farts that are now in office, we will see changes in legal acce3ptance of homosexuality. There is no reason, that I see, for a GLBT person not to serve in the military or to be “married.” And it cannot happen soon enough…for all.

Another “so’s your old man” arguement by Freeper

Acting all gay? Give me a verbal picture of that please.

freeper: I don’t think you would find a liberal here that would not agree it was wrong back then and yes, Democrats were responsible. Of course, when Clinton proposed doing away with laws that prevented gays from serving openly the theocrats on the right went mouthbreathing crazy. Some Dems like Nunn were equally unreasonable. So Clinton did what he became so good at, he triangulated with the DADT compromise. It was wrong. Freeper, liberals here are able to admit when Dems are wrong, something the rw posters here are not capable of doing about the Reps and their supporters.

Another “so’s your old man” arguement by Freepe

As was yours so what exactly are you whining about other than its the favorite sport of liberals

“So Clinton did what he became so good at”

Yes which is having absolutely no principles whatsoever other than maintaining power.

Why do rw (as you so eloquently call them) need to admit anything. Regardless if they are right or wrong as far as the looney left is concerned they are always wrong. Too bad arrogance isn’t energy we could power the entire world til the end of time.

Thanks for replying and the link Jay. I’d still say Lindsey is playing on the wrong side of the truth by saying that DODT would be repealed before getting input from the military. Hopefully intrepid reporters would point that out as well.

freeper: Understanding nuance is not one of your skills. I was being critical of Clinton’s triangulation. That was encouraged by Dick Morris and was not a proud way to govern. There have been many people on this sight, including me, who have given kudos to people on the right and criticized people on the left. But you can’t see this. Sorry.

Acting all gay means a male flirting with another male. Unless you are gay, that is digusting. The majority of servicemen are straight and right now the very few gay ones in the military do not mess with them. If gays are allowed to be open, they will act like it and all hell will break loose within the military. It will cause sexual harrasements, male on male. It will cause people to get hurt. And this is not the same thing as a race issue. This is a total different issue. A race is a race. Being immoral and offending other people through actions against them is not acceptable to the VAST MAJORITY of the straight servicemembers.

Wow! Someone really filled your head with paranoia and suspicion. Have you worked with gay people? Did they act all gay and everything? Did they come on to you? Where do you get your notions that gays will run wild if allowed to talk about their orientation? You really have no respect for military discipline. When a service man hits on a service woman, does the immoral behavior cause the breakdown of discipline? I find not respecting those who want to serve our country honorably as immoral. Chill out.

Stop all this bigotry. Ask all the servicemembers themselves. Majority rules. And take it from there. No matter what anyone says. Being Gay is Wrong and Immoral. Men were not meant to conceive or marry eah other. It’s against MOTHER NATURE. They are sick in the mind. We are the only country who has values by not letting gays in our military. And please do not compare us to the military of the U.K. or other european countries. Because we are so much better than that. Majority of Americans have values.And that is what the new Democrats are lacking these days. The true democrat, President Kennedy would have never let DADT pass from the beginning.