Don't Ask, Don't Tell...still a real issue?

[BeeJay]

I assumed that of all the big promises Obama campaigned on, repealing DADT would be the easiest. The '90s weren't that long ago, but the cultural shifts behind gay acceptance have been very profound since this last caused a big stink. The idea of gays in the military being controversial seems straight out of a time capsule to me, right up there with Melrose Place, Baywatch and Nirvana.

http://feitelogram.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/pamela_anderson_baywatch_surf1.jpg

http://www.consoleclassix.com/info_img/Super_Mario_Bros._3_NES_ScreenShot3.jpg

(In the '90s, we all played 8-bit Nintendo games and had to fantasize about women whose naked pictures weren't on the internet yet. Also, we walked 3 miles to school in the snow, and WE LIKED IT!)

But I clearly underestimated the mettle of our loyal opposition party, and we do indeed have sitting U.S. senators arguing against the repeal of the policy, even though the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs both support repeal.

This was all very mainstream and hip back when Arsenio Hall was still on late night and even Colin Powell for godssakes!!! was convinced that gay people were dangerous and icky and would try to touch other soldiers' weiners in the showers and "undermine unit cohesion" (a phrase that in itself sounds pretty gay, let's be honest).

But haven't things changed a bit since then?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/twn_up_fls/sam%20nunn.jpg

(In the '90s, even Democrats like Ga. Senator Sam Nunn could oppose letting gays serve openly without being regarded as complete douches. This was largely due to the fact that Will and Grace had not yet arrived, allowing people in places like Georgia to see that queers didn't breathe fire and rape bunnies...at least not very often. This was also due to the fact that guys like Sam Nunn are very old. Seriously, this guy was alive when Hitler invaded Poland.)

The current opposition is incredible to me. Obama fanboy that I admittedly am, I can still believe that Republicans have genuine (if newly discovered) differences with him on big issues like the budget, health care, and the DH in the American League. But seriously? Is it so vital to oppose the president that the party of the military is going to piss on recommendations from the nation's top commanders to "make a stand"?

It all seems about as phony to me as Pam Anderson's rack. (Aaaand we're back to Baywatch again.)

http://www.phreecelebs.com/Baywatch/Pamela-Anderson-Baywatch.jpg

(Pamela Anderson has very large breasts. What were we talking about?)

But...maybe I'm wrong?

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii13/mildmannrdreprtr/19562_370942245231_673405231_105081.jpg

(Maybe BJ is wrong? Hard to believe. He's looking it up on his phone now to check.)

So my question: Was I mistaken to assume that most people had gotten past this before Obama was elected, or is this opposition as nakedly political as it appears to me?

http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/Senator-john-mccain.jpg

(John McCain once said he would support repealing DADT if the top military brass came out in favor of it. He changed his mind. Is he a complete political hack, a senile windbag, or both? I'm open-minded on the subject!)

Are there real people (i.e., not politicians) who feel concerned about letting gays serve openly? I know we have a pretty good sampling of right-leaning posters here. I'm interested in your thoughts...and that's no joke.

[Christy]

You outing yourself as an Obama fanboy is more shocking than the topic at hand :lookaroun

I couldn't care less. I dont' know. I don't think about this often I guess :lol

[Christy]

Great post by the way :lol

[Computer Magic]

Well I thought there was a cultual change since the 90's. What I have thought about is how Ellen is accepted today vs when her show was cancelled in the mid 90's when she came out. I think people are more open and accepting, at least I hope so. So I think that DADT is outdated and should be changed. But to be honest, I'm like Christy, I haven't tought about it.

[Doug11]

What do you have against Pamela Anderson's rack?

Someone, somewhere, some time ago was speaking of something artificial and said, "It's like Pamela Anderson. You know it isn't real, but you have to appreciate the effort."

:)

What were we talking about again? Using Pam Anderson's implants as weapons of mass destruction? :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

What were we talking about again? Using Pam Anderson's implants as weapons of mass destruction? :lookaroun

I think "weapons of mass distraction" would be more appropriate. :D

[Oscar Brito]

Great post BJ! :goofy

But I'll leave you with this this:


"On domestic policy, traditionally Democratic presidents are more reformist, closer to the labor movement, more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people--and that's been true of Obama. But Democratic reforms have also been limited, cautious. Obama's no exception. On healthcare, for example, he starts out with a compromise, and when you start out with a compromise, you end with a compromise of a compromise, which is where we are now......I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction." -Howard Zinn, The Nation

I tried hard for a while...but I got off the Obama-wagon some time ago. Is he really trying? I mean...Obama will say he tried, and then blame the lack of change on the conservatives who conveniently got in the way.

When the bullets fly and the bombs go boom, it really doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is...:dunno

[Garyhoov]

Don't ask don't tell is idiotic. As commander-in-chief, can't Obama just change it with an executive order? If so, what the hell is he waiting for?:dunno

We're talking about the military. They take orders, it's what they're trained to do. Generals don't ask their men: "Do you think we can take that hill? Is that really the right thing to do? Do you think we can do it?"

They say: "Take that hill or die trying, damn it."

And that's what Obama should do here: "This is the new policy. DEAL WITH IT."

Unless it requires an act of Congress (and I haven't yet been able to determine clearly that it does or does not). Obama has absolutely NO EXCUSE not to just say: "From now on, gays will be allowed to openly serve.:mad

And even if oit does require an act of Congress, why didn't he ask for that bill long ago?

[Garyhoov]

And by the way, BJ, I remember the '80s pretty clearly and only Neanderthals and Jerry Fallwell had a big problem back then. Speaking for myself and most of my friends, I think we could have dealt with it even in those dark, dark times. Clinton was just spineless. . . as he was on many things.

[Garyhoov]

. . . and as long as I'm in "political rant mode":lookaroun there are a few other things I need to vent about.

I'm a libertarian who believes first and foremost in fiscal responsibility and limited government, but I also believe:

1. The military objectives in Iraq were achieved LONG ago and there's no need for us to stay in perpetuity and act as a police force.

2. We need a real, long term energy policy that reduces our dependence on oil (oil dependence reduces national security and makes us dependent on a limited resource that varies dramatically in price) and also reduces grenhouse gas emmisions. There will be a short term cost, but long term benefits are immeasurable.

3. There are problems with cost and accesibility to health care that can be addressed with realatively simple legislation and doesn't require the creation of huge new bureaucracies.

4. Social Security and medicare and medicaid are on the verge of collapse and need to be fixed . . . QUICKLY.

5. Our national debt is completely out of control. We shouldn't be discussing what level of deficits are acceptable, but rather we should be talking about what kind of surplusses we need to have in the following years to begin paying down the actual debt.

The Democrats have been in power since 2006, yet they have done NOTHING of note to address these problems. They keep falling back on the George Bush, George Bush, George Bush argument, but I don't remember him vetoing a bunch of bills they sent to him in the last few years of his term.

Now they say: "Obama's only been there a year . . . give him time." and try to pretend they haven't controlled congress for the past 3 years.

The only thing they've done of note since 2006 was the "Stimulus plan" . . . which was probably the worst thing the government has done in my lifetime (I'd put the war with Iraq at a close second). Even if you subscribe to Keynesian models (I do, many do not), the idea of a 5 year "stimulus" is oxymoronic (if not plain moronic). Within the coming years, the spending will shift from stimulating to inflationary. The whole point of stimulus is it is short-term.

A real stimulus (rather than drunken spending spree) should have been focused on the housing and auto markets. A stronger housing market would have prevented defaults and prevented the pressure on the banks that lead to the broader problems.

There are simple, commons sense fixes to many of our problems and if Republicans stood in the way of good legislation, the people would back the Democrats, but rather than doing things that make sense, the Democrats choose to create enormous, bloated, non-sensical bills that the Republicans can easily take populist positions against . . . and then they blame the 40 Republican senators for picking on them.:rollseyes


. . . oh, yeah, and George Bush.

[Christy]

. . . and as long as I'm in "political rant mode":lookaroun there are a few other things I need to vent about.

I'm a libertarian who believes first and foremost in fiscal responsibility and limited government, but I also believe:

1. The military objectives in Iraq were achieved LONG ago and there's no need for us to stay in perpetuity and act as a police force.

2. We need a real, long term energy policy that reduces our dependence on oil (oil dependence reduces national security and makes us dependent on a limited resource that varies dramatically in price) and also reduces grenhouse gas emmisions. There will be a short term cost, but long term benefits are immeasurable.

3. There are problems with cost and accesibility to health care that can be addressed with realatively simple legislation and doesn't require the creation of huge new bureaucracies.

4. Social Security and medicare and medicaid are on the verge of collapse and need to be fixed . . . QUICKLY.

5. Our national debt is completely out of control. We shouldn't be discussing what level of deficits are acceptable, but rather we should be talking about what kind of surplusses we need to have in the following years to begin paying down the actual debt.

The Democrats have been in power since 2006, yet they have done NOTHING of note to address these problems. They keep falling back on the George Bush, George Bush, George Bush argument, but I don't remember him vetoing a bunch of bills they sent to him in the last few years of his term.

Now they say: "Obama's only been there a year . . . give him time." and try to pretend they haven't controlled congress for the past 3 years.

The only thing they've done of note since 2006 was the "Stimulus plan" . . . which was probably the worst thing the government has done in my lifetime (I'd put the war with Iraq at a close second). Even if you subscribe to Keynesian models (I do, many do not), the idea of a 5 year "stimulus" is oxymoronic (if not plain moronic). Within the coming years, the spending will shift from stimulating to inflationary. The whole point of stimulus is it is short-term.

A real stimulus (rather than drunken spending spree) should have been focused on the housing and auto markets. A stronger housing market would have prevented defaults and prevented the pressure on the banks that lead to the broader problems.

There are simple, commons sense fixes to many of our problems and if Republicans stood in the way of good legislation, the people would back the Democrats, but rather than doing things that make sense, the Democrats choose to create enormous, bloated, non-sensical bills that the Republicans can easily take populist positions against . . . and then they blame the 40 Republican senators for picking on them.:rollseyes


. . . oh, yeah, and George Bush.

Gary for president, Gary for president!! :bow

Oh, wait... those were all reasonable things you were saying. Sorry Gary, you don't have a prayer :sadbye

I can't watch the news anymore. Just cannot. It makes me so mad, I honestly had tears in my eyes yesterday :blush

[Christy]

Tangent... Social Security... everybody who makes fun of me for having 10983750 kids can kiss my butt when someday, if by some miracles social security survives, they are paying for it for you :lol

[Garyhoov]

:lol And we're going to suck them dry. :lookaroun

. . . and back to the original . . . completely unrelated tangent:lookaroun

Imagine this hypothetical: The Democrats introduce the following, one paragraph bill:

Starting March 31, 2010, no insurance company will refuse new customers for "pre-existing conditions" for a period of one year until March 31, 2011. After that time, insurance companies will again be allowed to refuse people for pre-existing conditions, but ONLY if the customer has been without insurance for a period of 3 months. If you don't have insurance by then, it's your own damn fault, so don't come bitching to us.

The Democrats should present that bill as their first step in health-care reform and they should DARE the Republicans to fillibuster that.

Then they can address subsidies for low income people as a separate issue.

Then they can address real cost reduction (which, in any world in which the ruling party wasn't bought by trial lawyers would include tort reform) as a separate issue, etc. etc. etc.

[Oscar Brito]

I don't agree with everything Gary (tort reform does not reduce the cost of health care and the stimulus was necessary), but you make a lot of great points. The fact is that the Democrats and Republicans in power only support laws and initiatives that help keep them in power. If they could they would do nothing at all. The "culture war" debates facilitate the political theater that reinforces divisions and obstructs the unity of the masses against the decision-makers in Washington (a real populist movement).

The fact is these deficits and the debt are dangerous. Yet instead of quickly dealing with a simple matter like doing away with DADT, the powers that be put on a show that the media plays, a debate of distractions, while the real issues are ignored. The opposition always has it easy...bur the fact remains that when they were in power they did nothing to fix these problems either. To pretend they care now to score easy political points only highlights the problem we face....

[Garyhoov]

The fact is these deficits and the debt are dangerous. Yet instead of quickly dealing with a simple matter like doing away with DADT, the powers that be put on a show that the media plays, a debate of distractions, while the real issues are ignored.

Excellent point. It's so frustrating that so much time is spent on minor issues - abortion, gun control, gay Marriage, Don't ask don't tell - that the Federal Government shouldn't really be involved with rather than the real issues of managing resources and doing the things the Federal Government has been constitutionally tasked with.

I think the media is a big part of the problem . . . but we're the customers of the media, so until we demand more, we'll continue to get what we're getting now.

If I'm ever involved in presidential debate (and let's just hope we never sink to that level:goofy), I would have to preface nearly every answer with: "You realize the point your asking about has very little to do with the actual responsibility of the president, don't you?"

[Lindz]

When the bullets fly and the bombs go boom, it really doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is...:dunno

I have to agree. I have a friend who is a Marine, and we were having a discussion about this the other day. He said that when it came to saving lives and being kept alive by his fellow Marines, he didn't care who was gay and who was straight. They all were there for each other, as a team, and that is the most important thing.

I'm not very much into politics (I know, bad American), but I don't see why DADT should still be in effect. Obama should just tell them it's no longer policy and be done with it.

[BeeJay]

Don't ask don't tell is idiotic. As commander-in-chief, can't Obama just change it with an executive order? If so, what the hell is he waiting for?:dunno

...

Unless it requires an act of Congress (and I haven't yet been able to determine clearly that it does or does not). Obama has absolutely NO EXCUSE not to just say: "From now on, gays will be allowed to openly serve.:mad

And even if oit does require an act of Congress, why didn't he ask for that bill long ago?

Best I can tell, the policy is federal law and can only be repealed legislatively.

What Obama could do is issue an executive order directing the military to stop enforcing it — which could be an awkward position for a guy who's spent a lot of time accusing the last president of just ignoring the laws he didn't like.

From what I've been reading, there's talk of basically gutting the policy by setting the bar so high for discharges that it would be a paper tiger for as long as it remains law (or until another president decides to rework it again).

If that's how it goes, it wouldn't exactly be Obama's Emancipation Proclamation moment, but I'd take it if the bottom line is people stop losing their jobs over this.

[Christy]

I don't agree with everything Gary (tort reform does not reduce the cost of health care and the stimulus was necessary), but you make a lot of great points. The fact is that the Democrats and Republicans in power only support laws and initiatives that help keep them in power. If they could they would do nothing at all. The "culture war" debates facilitate the political theater that reinforces divisions and obstructs the unity of the masses against the decision-makers in Washington (a real populist movement).

The fact is these deficits and the debt are dangerous. Yet instead of quickly dealing with a simple matter like doing away with DADT, the powers that be put on a show that the media plays, a debate of distractions, while the real issues are ignored. The opposition always has it easy...bur the fact remains that when they were in power they did nothing to fix these problems either. To pretend they care now to score easy political points only highlights the problem we face....

I beg to differ :lol

How many tests are ordered because doctors have to cover their asses? Priced at CT scan or MRI lately?

[Christy]

Ok, I can sit down for another 5 seconds... and I know everybody thinks doctors make way too much money, but how much do they pay in malpractice? Or if not them, their practice? And if (when) they get sued, how much is lost in court costs, even if no monetary amount is awarded the patient?

But this is the mentality, of the billions health care dollars, what are the tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars tort reform would save? Drop in the bucket, right?

Like dismissing things that would save us $1 billion because it's "only" $1 billion in other areas.

Government needs to start clipping coupons and cut up their credit cards like the rest of us have learned to do.

[figmentmom]

I have to agree. I have a friend who is a Marine, and we were having a discussion about this the other day. He said that when it came to saving lives and being kept alive by his fellow Marines, he didn't care who was gay and who was straight. They all were there for each other, as a team, and that is the most important thing.

I'm not very much into politics (I know, bad American), but I don't see why DADT should still be in effect. Obama should just tell them it's no longer policy and be done with it.


Best I can tell, the policy is federal law and can only be repealed legislatively.

What Obama could do is issue an executive order directing the military to stop enforcing it — which could be an awkward position for a guy who's spent a lot of time accusing the last president of just ignoring the laws he didn't like.

From what I've been reading, there's talk of basically gutting the policy by setting the bar so high for discharges that it would be a paper tiger for as long as it remains law (or until another president decides to rework it again).

If that's how it goes, it wouldn't exactly be Obama's Emancipation Proclamation moment, but I'd take it if the bottom line is people stop losing their jobs over this.

DADT has been a duplicitous policy all along, and has simply allowed the military to side-step a real discrimination issue. It's been my understanding that it's federal law as well, and needs legislative repeal. I believe that if Obama had been able to simply inform the military that the policy was no longer in effect, he would have done it.

[BeeJay]

The specifics of tort reform are out of my wheelhouse, but I've read more than once that it has little relation to healthcare costs. As evidence, Texas has instituted the kind of reform a lot of people in Congress would like to see, and their healthcare costs are still sky high. This link suggests that the real reason premiums are so high isn't docs practicing "defensive medicine," but the piecemeal, a la carte nature of medicine in this country altogether. Doctors still get paid for every individual test they order, so they have no incentive not to perform unnecessary tests. (I'm sure there are exceptions, as with everything.)

http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/texas-tort-reform-is-not-a-model-for-nationwide-health-care-reform.aspx?googleid=270440

Tort reform might help doctors, but if this example is any indication, it probably won't do patients much good.

[TheQueen]

I have two brothers in the army currently and they could care less. They've both have served or are currently serving with gay soldiers. What may have helped move this along is when American troops began serving with European armies who have openly gay service personnel. It's not a problem for them so why should it be for us?

[TheQueen]

And as a general aside, I can't stand either party right now. They both have their good and mostly bad sides right now. I'm sooooooo sick of them both. I would like to see a true progressive political party ready to fight for the middle class and ready to take on lobbyists and big business.

[Garyhoov]

The specifics of tort reform are out of my wheelhouse, but I've read more than once that it has little relation to healthcare costs. As evidence, Texas has instituted the kind of reform a lot of people in Congress would like to see, and their healthcare costs are still sky high. This link suggests that the real reason premiums are so high isn't docs practicing "defensive medicine," but the piecemeal, a la carte nature of medicine in this country altogether. Doctors still get paid for every individual test they order, so they have no incentive not to perform unnecessary tests. (I'm sure there are exceptions, as with everything.)

http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/medical-malpractice/texas-tort-reform-is-not-a-model-for-nationwide-health-care-reform.aspx?googleid=270440

Tort reform might help doctors, but if this example is any indication, it probably won't do patients much good.

If we actually want to reduce real costs (as opposed to playing a shell game with who pays those costs), don't we have to accept the reality that quality needs to, in some way, be reduced?

I think that, as you suggest, part of the problem is that in health-care the supplier tells the customer what they need. Imagine if, when you walked into a home depot, you had little say in what you ended up buying and the salesman determined what you needed and you basically had to get everything he told you to get . . . and, by the way, you wouldn't actually pay for any of it . . . your insurance company would do that. That's basically how our health system works.

Because of that, I'm not completely opposed to the idea of "death panels" . . . in theory. I don't have that big of a problem with dis-interested parties making some decisions about what gets done. In theory, that's what some health insurers do . . . but we see how popular that is.

Of course I have also suggested the idea that higher deductables and more cost put directly on the insured would help to reduce costs . . . but again that wouldn't be real popular.

If everything related to health wasn't "free" to anyone who is insured, people would start reducing how much medication and doctors visits they purchase and the overall expense of health-care would go down.

Like a balanced budget, I think any real reduction in health care costs would not be accepted by an electorate that wants everything and doesn't want to give up anything . . . and when politicians would rather pander to an ignorant, greedy electorate than make rational decisions, it's very unrealistic to think that more government is the key to reduced costs.

[Garyhoov]

And as a general aside, I can't stand either party right now. They both have their good and mostly bad sides right now. I'm sooooooo sick of them both. I would like to see a true progressive political party ready to fight for the middle class and ready to take on lobbyists and big business.

As someone who doesn't associate myself with either party, I always get a chuckle out of how different followers of the different parties think they are . . . yet the only real difference I see are the talking points the particular side takes on the meaningless debates they are always having. And like any skilled debators, they can switch sides seemlesly . . . look at Arlen Specter.

. . . they've even gotten too tired to change the wording. A few years ago, the Republicans called the Democrats: "The Party of 'no' ". . . now the Democrats are using the exact same phrase.:lol

[Christy]

Andy's on salary, so yeah, we'd appreciate not having to worry about getting our asses kicked if the little gray speck turns out to be something more than he thought :goofy He doesn't order something that doesn't need to be done, in fact, in a pediatric hospital, you err on the side of less radiation for the little buggers. But anyway... I still say it's sick and wrong what the legal world has done to the medical world. But it had to come with progress I guess... all those tests, sure people don't die anymore, right? :lol

[Oscar Brito]

Capping damages helps doctors (not a bad thing), and lowers malpractice insurance, sure (and some of those savings I'm sure trickles down to someone)...but as seen in Texas the savings created in the system are probably being absorbed by the insurance companies. The costs have gone up and Texas has one of the highest number of uninsured in the country. Texas is one state, of a few that have enacted tort reform measures...and as far as I know, costs have not diminished or access increased. I think its reasonable to pass some kind of tort reform, but it really isn't "health care reform".

Don't forget about the "Political District"...seems to be a lot of pent up political frustration out there...lets further develop these conversations (topic by topic) over there....:lookaroun

[Christy]

No, tort reform as PART OF health care reform. I didn't say it was the beginning and end of the problem.

Do we need healthcare reform? Yes. Do we need the bullshit they are trying to feed to us? No. I want reform, I want the sick to be cared for, I want people to not have to worry about choosing between food or the doctor. But I haven't yet seen a reasonable answer to helping these things. Problem is both sides are being big "all or nothing!" babies.

So... DADT... I still don't care. But don't confuse my apathy with tolerance :lol

[figmentmom]

So... DADT... I still don't care. But don't confuse my apathy with tolerance :lol

You're not in favor of gays in the military? :dunno As Gordon said, it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for the European military.

[Doug11]

You're not in favor of gays in the military? :dunno As Gordon said, it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for the European military.

Personally, I don't want to swap the USA health care OR the USA military for ANYBODY's European plan. No offense to our Euro pals here - love you all - but I see too many wealthy Europeans and Canadians flying to the Mayo Clinic or MD Anderson (Texas) to get their asses saved when they are really sick and have the money to get the best money can buy, and I read of our USA fighting forces preserving liberty and democracy in Europe and around the world ever since the 1920s.

Don't mistake that to mean I am against gays in the military. I haven't really asked any soldiers what they think (or any gays who wish to serve either). Its not really my issue.

[figmentmom]

Well, we're really discussing two separate issues here - health care reform and gays in the military - and I think our responses are tripping each other up. :lol As I said before, I think the DADT policy is disingenuous at best, and should be scrapped. The military should not be able to discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation, any more than they are able to discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed or sex. (Wait, is the filter going to edit me here?) :goofy :lol

[BeeJay]

Yeah, I meant to put this in the politics board. Oops. :lookaroun

[BeeJay]

Like a balanced budget, I think any real reduction in health care costs would not be accepted by an electorate that wants everything and doesn't want to give up anything . . . and when politicians would rather pander to an ignorant, greedy electorate than make rational decisions, it's very unrealistic to think that more government is the key to reduced costs.

A-freakin'-men, brother.

I found this article literally minutes after reading your post:

Down With the People: Blame the childish, ignorant American public—not politicians—for our political and economic crisis. (http://www.slate.com/id/2243797/)

[Christy]

You're not in favor of gays in the military? :dunno As Gordon said, it certainly doesn't seem to be a problem for the European military.

I'm indifferent? :blush :lol

I guess that there is a policy in place at all is dumb, weird, I dunno... that we are even talking about it. I don't care if they are in there. Um, I'm not sure how to phrase it. :lol

[figmentmom]

I'm indifferent? :blush :lol

I guess that there is a policy in place at all is dumb, weird, I dunno... that we are even talking about it. I don't care if they are in there. Um, I'm not sure how to phrase it. :lol

"The policy should be scrapped." :lol

[TheQueen]

Don't forget about the "Political District"...seems to be a lot of pent up political frustration out there...lets further develop these conversations (topic by topic) over there....:lookaroun

And just jumping onto Oz's comment...in a non-gay way of course...can we have a general agreement to keep political comments and discussion in the political threads and not have them in the other what I consider fun threads? I really do consider the other threads to be a haven from having to listen to ANY political discussion from ANY side. I'm so burnt out about politics right now I'm ready to move to Mars and hide under a rock. Just an observation and request on my part. Although I understand if a discussion of one topic can lead to a more broader open discussion that leads to politics as it has done here.

[TheQueen]

What I find disgusting about the argument against gays in the military is that some people think that it would lead to open season on straights by gays. As if gays were these things with uncontrollable sexual urges ready to pounce on you at any moment. That is just ridiculous! I don't find all men attractive just as straight men don't find all women attractive or the same with straight women. Stop thinking about what soldiers do in the bedroom and be more concerned about what they do on duty. And if you're going to have rules that govern sexual behavior of troops, then it should apply to everyone right across the board. Straights and gays.

[BeeJay]

I'm indifferent? :blush :lol

I guess that there is a policy in place at all is dumb, weird, I dunno... that we are even talking about it. I don't care if they are in there. Um, I'm not sure how to phrase it. :lol

This sounds suspiciously close to tolerance to me! Tolerant, I dub thee! :D

[Oscar Brito]

And just jumping onto Oz's comment...in a non-gay way of course...can we have a general agreement to keep political comments and discussion in the political threads and not have them in the other what I consider fun threads? I really do consider the other threads to be a haven from having to listen to ANY political discussion from ANY side. I'm so burnt out about politics right now I'm ready to move to Mars and hide under a rock. Just an observation and request on my part. Although I understand if a discussion of one topic can lead to a more broader open discussion that leads to politics as it has done here.

True. I left this thread in here...because I think it goes beyond politics. It's a social issue that also goes beyond DADT. Politicians love to make it political though.

The government needs to catch up to the people and finally agree...that all men and women are created equal. :)

[Christy]

What I find disgusting about the argument against gays in the military is that some people think that it would lead to open season on straights by gays. As if gays were these things with uncontrollable sexual urges ready to pounce on you at any moment. That is just ridiculous! I don't find all men attractive just as straight men don't find all women attractive or the same with straight women. Stop thinking about what soldiers do in the bedroom and be more concerned about what they do on duty. And if you're going to have rules that govern sexual behavior of troops, then it should apply to everyone right across the board. Straights and gays.

I hadn't seen it in any other threads... yet :lol But you know us! :goofy

[figmentmom]

The government needs to catch up to the people and finally agree...that all men and women are created equal. :)

Well-said, and exactly right.

[Barnum42]

Why all the fuss over gays in the Army?

If God had meant gays to serve in The Army, he would not have invented The Navy

:goofy

[TheQueen]

In a sign that momentum behind a repeal of the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is having an impact, openly gay U.S. Army National Guard Lieutenant Dan Choi has been recalled to active duty.

Choi, a West Point graduate and trained Arabic linguist, was dismissed from duty in the spring of 2009, because of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Since then, he's been a leading voice for the cessation of the policy.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/139722/original.jpg

[TheQueen]

Why all the fuss over gays in the Army?

If God had meant gays to serve in The Army, he would not have invented The Navy

:goofy

When 100 navy men go down in a submarine, what comes up?


50 couples.