Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:08 AM ET, 12/19/2010

Sunday Open Thread

By Greg Sargent

Not a bad day yesterday. What's next?

By Greg Sargent  | December 19, 2010; 9:08 AM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: DADT repeal wins!
Next: The Morning Plum

Comments

It looks like the health care bill for 9/11 responders may get another vote. Gillibrand has been working with Collins to come up with an alternative plan to pay for it which may bring enough Republicans along for the ride.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We have the votes we need," Gillibrand said today at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "We've had indications from several Republicans that they very much want to vote for this bill.

"They would like to vote for a stand-alone bill," she said. "There is general agreement on a new pay-for that we're going to offer, so the hope is to get to the bill as soon as the START bill is completed."

Today Gillibrand said that the new off-set would be a 2 percent fee on procurement contracts for certain countries, combined with a visa fee."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-confident-911-health-bill-pass/story?id=12431493&page=1

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Anyone attending to the Brit paper the Guardian yesterday would have bumped into a Wikileaks State Department cable which said that Sicko had been banned in Cuba. The Guardian is, of course, one of the media outlets releasing the Wikileaks cables. I didn't post the Guardian piece on it yesterday because I was waiting to hear an account from Moore. Here it is...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/viva-wikileaks-sicko-was_b_798586.html

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 9:23 AM | Report abuse

We've had a troll problem here for a while now and I wanted to help clarify why such behavior is not merely an inconvenience or obnoxious, it is fundamentally undemocratic. (I put this on yesterday's thread but thought I'd place it here too, if ok).

RFR is just following the technique developed by the Dick Armey and friends' front-groups which their memo described as 'rock the townhall' - disrupt and inhibit communications amongst groups of individuals who might form a consensus which works against conservative interests. It's a technique which is anti-democracy and anti-liberty (they'd think of it as suppressing liberty and speech in order to protect liberty and speech, of course).

The "right to assembly" is intimately tied to the free speech principle. The right was codified in the B of R and constitution because tyrannies had (and always will) seek to police groups of citizens getting together. Together, they can organize and organized citizens are far more powerful than when dis-organized.

In other words, it isn't the "getting together" that's the important point (people getting together to make pies isn't a problem to a tyrant) it's that it is only when together (in person or in a discussion board etc) that they have the opportunity to coalesce and organize politically.

The sort of purposeful disruption that RFR and his type are doing has precisely the same goal and methodology of goons wading into a union meeting or a Third Reich edict banning Jews from congregating.

But they do it to protect the right to assembly and the right to unfettered speech, of course.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday was a bad day for those of us who want a strong, upstanding military.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

clawrence12, what do you know about the military?
Nothing.

Posted by: savetherest | December 19, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, are you describing yourself as RFR? I thought you were the one who wasn't going to post here as much anymore?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

A very long thread yesterday into the wee hours of the morning re homosexuality. Let me just add that human sexuality is a very complex issue and for every study that defines it in concrete terms there is another study that defines it entirely differently. What it boils down to is for those of us who have ever know and loved a friend, a family member or just someone in the community we respect and trust, the way they are wired sexually has no bearing on our feelings for them. People should not be defined, when they are consenting adults, by their sexual preferences.

Those of you lumping homosexuality into the same category as pedophilia and fetishes such as bestiality are clearly lacking in both understanding and experience with the gay community. It's both offensive and frustrating that these comparisons still exist. It's time to appreciate the world as it exists and not some fantasy world you wish you lived in, where everyone lived up to your expectations and perfections.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

It should be a crime for UNELECTED House and Senate members to force through these unpopular socialist type programs against the will just expressed in the recent election by the PEOPLE of this once great Nation.
DADT is just another way for the liberals to disrupt our Nation by demoralizing our armed forces.
The START treaty is loaded for Russia's benefit with the prohibition of the missile defense work.
The people in Congress doing this should go down in history as traitors to America and should be held in contempt by the American people.
The contempt shown the elderly people by the democrats in their expressed wish to confiscate their life savings through the "death" tax is one of the most contemptible parts of the democrat agenda.

Posted by: Jakeson | December 19, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

savetherest, I know that three of the four Service Chiefs (do you know who they are?) oppose repeal of DADT too. Are you going to accuse them of knowing nothing about the military?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

It is Sunday because Frank Rich published my ideas as his own, again. The Problem with America is not partisanship, the more the better, it is the juice, the pay to play crony capitalism, a corporatocracy than can only lead to plutocracy and oligarchy.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca, aren't those with fetishes such as bestiality consenting adults with sexual preferences? Next, we need to amend UCMJ to allow for that too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Arguing about religion is ridiculous, not to mention a waste of valuable bandwidth, this is supposed to be a politics post-it board.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

shrink2, who brought up religion on this thread?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

clawrence

You continue to prove my point so no response from me is required.

Have a nice Sunday all.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Well if you persist in parsing sexuality, I will bring up my favorite topics too, like this from Reuters. I think skiing is awesome fun Lindsey is an American champion (who isn't a head case like Bodie) and we are heading off today for more of it.

"Lindsey Vonn crowned a perfect weekend in Val d'Isere with victory in a super-combined race which lifted her back to the top of the women's Alpine ski World Cup standings on Sunday."

I glanced at yesterday's thread (what happened later on) and whoa, it is all a huge circle of insults aimed at people who have different beliefs.

No one is ever going to move anyone off their fundamental beliefs on a post it board. Politics are the way people who don't agree with each other amass the power to force their beliefs onto others. Engaging in politics is how people transact power in general, office politics, family politics. Lets argue politics.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Those of you lumping homosexuality into the same category as pedophilia and fetishes such as bestiality are clearly lacking in both understanding and experience with the gay community. It's both offensive and frustrating that these comparisons still exist. It's time to appreciate the world as it exists and not some fantasy world you wish you lived in, where everyone lived up to your expectations and perfections.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 9:45 AM
-------

Same category? Comparisons? As has been pointed out ad nauseam

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I think Bernie's post on STRF and lmsinca's post on the right's lack of experience and compassion for gay men and women go together.

The right's mission is to disrupt any progress and debate, and the way they do that is by flooding the airwaves with talking points that they haven't the first clue about. As Bernie points out, it is their attempt to distort infamous signal-to-noise ratio. The more noise there is, the harder it is to determine what is actual substance.

It is precisely this lack of knowledge and total lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity that enables them to perpetuate their lies. Knowledge and specifics only increase debate, which takes time and thought. They can't afford to actually think about their talking points because if they do the facts will come out.

That's why the very FIRST step for a Teapublican is Spread The Lie. Don't think about it, don't debate it, do not under any circumstances consider the source. It is this uncritical repetition of lies that allows the lies to go viral in the first place. Quite clearly, without this uncanny ability they have of uncritically passing along talking points, the Tea Party movement would simply not exist.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I think Bernie's post on STRF and lmsinca's post on the right's lack of experience and compassion for gay men and women go together.

The right's mission is to disrupt any progress and debate, and the way they do that is by flooding the airwaves with talking points that they haven't the first clue about. As Bernie points out, it is their attempt to distort infamous signal-to-noise ratio. The more noise there is, the harder it is to determine what is actual substance.

It is precisely this lack of knowledge and total lack of intellectual honesty and curiosity that enables them to perpetuate their lies. Knowledge and specifics only increase debate, which takes time and thought. They can't afford to actually think about their talking points because if they do the facts will come out.

That's why the very FIRST step for a Teapublican is Spread The Lie. Don't think about it, don't debate it, do not under any circumstances consider the source. It is this uncritical repetition of lies that allows the lies to go viral in the first place. Quite clearly, without this uncanny ability they have of uncritically passing along talking points, the Tea Party movement would simply not exist.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

no, im accusing you of knowing nothing about the military, never serving and having no clue what it is to be a soldier.

Posted by: savetherest | December 19, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Religious behavior is, now particularly but in most other cases as well, a profoundly political phenomenon (as well as an epistemological one). So it's relevant or at least can be. Gays in the American military being an obvious case

The problem here is something else related to epistemic closure, poor education and a seriously deficient familiarity with careful reasoning and rhetorical method.

I think there's much value to discussing all sorts of aspects of humans in community but close to none where those contributing are as described above. They have to be ignored and the rest of us can get on with discussions where learning is facilitated.

Aside from that, though skiing was once my life's great passion, I haven't followed it for a few years. Thanks for the Vonn update.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

savetherest, I don't do crack cocaine either but I still know it's bad for you.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Those of you lumping homosexuality into the same category as pedophilia and fetishes such as bestiality are clearly lacking in both understanding and experience with the gay community. It's both offensive and frustrating that these comparisons still exist. It's time to appreciate the world as it exists and not some fantasy world you wish you lived in, where everyone lived up to your expectations and perfections.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 9:45 AM
-------

Same category? Comparisons? As has been pointed out ad nauseam, comparing things is not the same as equating them. Homosexuality is an abnormality. If it is not an abnormality, we're still waiting to hear about the selective advantage.

And we regularly put people in prison who do not live up to our expectations and who interfere with our ideals of the fantasy world we wish we lived in---you know, the world without murder, pedophilia, robbery, rape, etc.

Knowing and loving gay people has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not homosexuality is abnormal. If you're child was born blind or crippled, straight or gay, I'm assuming you'd still love the child. But things aren't perfect. We're in a fallen state; perfect comes later. Something cretins like caothien9 lack the capacity to ever understand.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

no, im accusing you of knowing nothing about the military, never serving and having no clue what it is to be a soldier.

Posted by: savetherest | December 19, 2010 10:15 AM
-----

I was in the Army so I guess that makes me right. Clawrence12 is correct. That settles it, right. After all, I was in the Army.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, you should know by now that Imsinca, shrink2, and bernielatham all avoid inconvenient questions.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

"Aside from that, though skiing was once my life's great passion..."

Ha, a fellow traveler!

"Religious behavior is, now particularly but in most other cases as well, a profoundly political phenomenon (as well as an epistemological one)."

This is 100% true. I don't mind arguing the politics of religion at all, a favorite topic. The problem is arguing belief itself, whether God exists etc.: does to, does not, does to, does not...the reason I am back in shape and skiing after so many years of getting old is that I have a new family and I get a lot of does to, does not, does to, does not without having to read the PL.

Have a great day all of you, enjoy your blessings, or your good luck, the fruits of your labors...each other.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 19, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"I don't do crack cocaine either but I still know it's bad for you."

clawrence12, just think for a minute about how insane that sounds.

Do you really think that is a valid comparison? If so, why? Tell us your reasoning.


Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Bernie and Ethan. The right does not seem to be able to win in the debate of ideas so instead the way forward is to disrupt discussion, mostly through shouting lies over and over. That is happening here as it did in the public debate over health-care insurance reform.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 19, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Brigade: "If it is not an abnormality, we're still waiting to hear about the selective advantage."

You might have been in the army but you sure don't have an understanding of evolution. Evolution is not a judgment about normality. Genetic difference is random with no normal from the perspective of evolution. So any moral judgment constructed from such pseudo-science is bunk in its foundations.

More important, however, evolution and natural selection are not, and should not be, a guide for civil and political rights. There should be no connection between the two.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 19, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, what is "insane" is claiming someone who has never been in the military (or is not a crack cocaine addict, for that matter) cannot have an informed opinion on the topic. That's my reasoning for comparing both things.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Bernie and Ethan. The right does not seem to be able to win in the debate of ideas so instead the way forward is to disrupt discussion, mostly through shouting lies over and over. That is happening here as it did in the public debate over health-care insurance reform.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 19, 2010 10:33 AM
-----

The party which controls the White House and both houses of Congress by pretty good margins usually has the edge in a "debate of ideas". The debate of ideas seems to have gone the way of the right this past November. I'll look forward to the absence of lies and no disruption of discussion once Boehner and company start pushing an agenda different from Pelosi's. And if the right takes the Senate and/or the White House in 2012---look out! You'll be on board, right? No disruptions from people like you.

And you need not state your agreement with Bernie and Ethan. From now on, we'll just assume it. Saves you some key strokes.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, let me ask you a question now: who on this thread are the ones who have refused to answer questions?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Brigade: "The party which controls the White House and both houses of Congress by pretty good margins usually has the edge in a "debate of ideas". The debate of ideas seems to have gone the way of the right this past November. I'll look forward to the absence of lies and no disruption of discussion once Boehner and company start pushing an agenda different from Pelosi's. And if the right takes the Senate and/or the White House in 2012---look out! You'll be on board, right? No disruptions from people like you."

Actually, all polls have shown that the Repubs did not win the debate of ideas in November, and very few people actually support their ideas. The vote--and, of course, you know this--was mostly about dissatisfaction with the economy (aka the Bush recession). But the Repubs and their ideas are not very popular. Again, it was mostly by lying and shouting lies over and over that the Repubs were able to stop any progress. I don't think this will change much these next two years.

And I don't think progressives will resort to right-wing tactics. They will continue attempting to get their ideas across through reason and debate.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 19, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

You might have been in the army but you sure don't have an understanding of evolution. Evolution is not a judgment about normality. Genetic difference is random with no normal from the perspective of evolution. So any moral judgment constructed from such pseudo-science is bunk in its foundations.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 19, 2010 10:39 AM
-------

However limited my understanding of evolution, it does seem to exceed yours. Mutations may be random, but selection is all about what you call normality. If you cannot compete in your environment, you're toast. What keeps homosexuality in the gene pool is the ability of many homosexuals to mate with those of the opposite sex. If you isolated a number of gays on an island for the rest of their lives, it's unlikely they'd leave as many offspring as a similar group of straight people---at least not by following their natural urges. That's supposedly where evolution takes place---where small populations are isolated from the main body. You've heard of Mayr and Haldane et al., right? Or do you pull your theories from your butt like caothien9?

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 10:56 AM | Report abuse

michiganmaine, you mean the type of "reason and debate" where YOU dismiss outright any discussion of whether a significant portion of our military decides to take early retirement, not re-enlist, or not enlist in the first place?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, don't hold your breath waiting for actual answers from them.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

And I don't think progressives will resort to right-wing tactics. They will continue attempting to get their ideas across through reason and debate.

Posted by: michiganmaine | December 19, 2010 10:49 AM
-----

Well now, that would be a welcome change. And just keep thinking that the November election was not a choice of Republicans over Democrats, but merely the result of lies and propaganda. I'm sure Republicans will give you your poll results as long as you give them the elections.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, the funniest from yesterday was ceflyline claiming that 500,000 homosexuals are ready, willing, and able to replace 250,000 straight soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines. I guess they've need operating their own little boot (not Prada) camps and clone army.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

@clawrence12: "what is "insane" is claiming someone who has never been in the military (or is not a crack cocaine addict, for that matter) cannot have an informed opinion on the topic. That's my reasoning for comparing both things."

So you think that despite being a civilian who has never served a single day in the military YOU are competent enough to judge -- without doing ANY sort of factual analysis or research -- the complexity of how the military works, how troops socialize, how they have dealt with gays in the ranks, how gays act socially, and how gays act when they are performing military maneuvers?

You honestly feel competent enough to judge these complex issues despite having NO understanding of the issues on even a basic level?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Yes (although I have looked into it, reading the 100 page Pentagon transition paper too). Care to answer my question to you now?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"Yesterday," was a major, watershed event: cutting to the chase, repealing DADT was all about the civil rights of certain Americans that have not had them. That's it. All the other verbiage on the subject is just noise. Yesterday, we became a "more perfect union."

Posted by: dozas | December 19, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

dozas, maybe tomorrow you Dems will finally get around to protecting the civil rights of servicemen (and women) who like to sleep with lower animals!

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Senator Mark Kirk(R) was in the military. He voted for to repeal DADT.

Admiral Mullins is in the military. He called for the repeal of DADT.

I think those people know more about military affairs than hate mongering vermin, such as Clawrence and Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

"Yes"

I see. And the transition paper says that gays serving in the military are like a person doing crack cocaine? Link?

"who on this thread are the ones who have refused to answer questions?"

I don't see anybody who has refused to answer any legitimate questions. I see an emotionally immature person (you), who is bigoted against gays, and is trying to defend an indefensible position by posting absurd, thoughtless, and insulting comments.

@Brigade: "just keep thinking that the November election was not a choice of Republicans over Democrats"

It was. A choice made by predominantly OLDER, more CONSERVATIVE voters than the average voter.

But hey, you'll ignore that fact right up until 2012 when the GOP gets demolished.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

does anyone like the fast fix by chris?

I miss his columns, don't enjoy the video's or his 'rate this'

Posted by: newagent99 | December 19, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Liam-still, Adm. Mullins is the ONLY Service Chief in favor of repealing DADT at this time, so are the other three Service Chiefs "hate mongering vermin" as well?

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Brigade, I meant to engage you and ceflynline and any other vets as to your opinions on whether the various branches would have different reactions. I suggested that I thought adjusting to the new reality would be relatively easy in the Navy, but much more difficult in ground combat units, and that I thought the Marines in particular might deal with the required protocols and behavior AFTER the end of engagement in AFG. I thought they would have that leeway under a congressional repeal of the DQ when they might be faced with a mandatory injunction from a court.

I want to know what any veteran here thinks about the different approaches the branches may take. As I said yesterday, I would expect all branches to act honorably. As a recent Commandant said about another subject, peacekeeping, Marines can do anything - provided they are trained for it.

So I am not interested in the discussion of retention rates or of the relative merits of homosexuality,but I am interested in how and when you see the ground combat forces dealing with it, and whether you share my notion that the Navy won't have a problem with it, almost immediately.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Republicans filibustered the bill that would provide healthcare for the sick 9/11 first responders, because they opposed it being paid for by doing away with tax incentives for companies to move jobs overseas.

Republicans hate both the 9/11 first responders and America's workers.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, newagent99, that is not a "legitimate" question.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Clawrence and Brigade are sounding more and more like Senator Larry Craig, and Pastor Ted Haggard.

Me thinks; Clawrence and Brigade doth protest too much!

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 11:43 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin, ditto as to your illegitimate question.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Imsinca: "It looks like the health care bill for 9/11 responders may get another vote. Gillibrand has been working with Collins to come up with an alternative plan to pay for it which may bring enough Republicans along for the ride."

Yes, I saw that yesterday, and was pleased. My concern is that if there is a change to the funding, it will have to go to a conference committee or back to the House to vote on the Senate version.

Whatever it takes, it really needs to be completed though. It's beyond a national embarrassment that we have not stepped up to help those who rushed in on 9/11 and are now sick and without resources.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"Me thinks;" (obviously not, Liam-still).

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Was this guy backed by the Tea Party?

From Politicalwire.com


"Newly-elected Congressman Under Investigation
The Miami Herald reports investigators are looking into more than $500,000 in secret payments from the owners of a dog track to a company tied to Rep-elect David Rivera (R-FL).

"Most of the money was paid in early 2008, weeks after Rivera -- then a member of the Florida House of Representatives -- helped run a political campaign backed by the dog track to win voter approval for Las Vegas-style slot machines at parimutuel venues in Miami-Dade County." "

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Incidentally, how is Mark Kirk a Senator now? The Illinois seat wasn't up for special election. It's not like Delaware or West Virginia where the elections too place mid-term. The normal term ends this year, so shouldn't Burris still be there?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

IL voters voted twice. They had the special election on the same day as the regular mid-term election, and Kirk won both, so he was seated immediately.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark Kirk is a Senator now, because in addition to winning a four year term, starting in 2011, he also won a special election to finish the remainder of the term that Roland Burris had been appointed to. Kirk was sworn in to complete the term, right after the election results were made official and certified.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark Kirk is a Senator now, because in addition to winning a four year term, starting in 2011, he also won a special election to finish the remainder of the term that Roland Burris had been appointed to. Kirk was sworn in to complete the term, right after the election results were made official and certified.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Oh, ok. Thanks.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to see how allowing gays to be openly gay helps the military. They never said you couldn't be gay, you just couldn't be openly gay. How does a gay pride parade on a military base help? How does having male-male or female-female relationships help the military? How does all associated DRAMA help the military?

Posted by: Alvin691 | December 19, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, newagent99, that is not a "legitimate" question.

Posted by: clawrence12

ah, a cute little rule maker.

Posted by: newagent99 | December 19, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

@Liam Quote from sunshinestatenews - "The Republican candidate in the race is state Rep. David Rivera, who is backed by the GOP establishment and well-funded"

If he is indeed guilty and corrupt the TP will handle him in the Primaries of 2012

Posted by: Alvin691 | December 19, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why anyone bothers to engage with the wingers -- it's really not worth your time. They are retrograde lizard brains.

Like this rocket scientist:

"It should be a crime for UNELECTED House and Senate members to force through these unpopular socialist type programs"

Poor soul.. gee, how did they get into the House and Senate if they weren't elected? Ever hear of the Constitution, guy?

80% approval of repealing dadt means it is not unpopular. It is not 'socialist'either. You do not know what the word means.

What amazes me about these conceptual illiterates is how they manage to mangle the language so badly -- but of course they are parroting propaganda.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 19, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Alvin691: "I have yet to see how allowing gays to be openly gay helps the military. They never said you couldn't be gay, you just couldn't be openly gay. How does a gay pride parade on a military base help? How does having male-male or female-female relationships help the military? How does all associated DRAMA help the military?"
------------------


They could be fired for being gay, if they were found out. They were forced to HIDE who they are. TO LIE about it. Now they don't have to. They can be who they are.

The military has expelled 14,000 troops under DADT. Those included many who have vital training that the military needs...like linguists who speak Arabic....highly trained fighter pilots...people the military has invested millions of dollars to train.

Gay pride parades on bases? Supposition much? Good lord.

Based on the military's report to Congress, most gay troops are going to keep their sexual orientation as a private matter, and their personal business. But if they don't, or if someone asks them, they can be TRUTHFUL without penalty of discharge.

The same sex troops are already present in the military, and always have been a part of it. Sexual orientation does not help nor harm the military. That's already proven. Discharging people for engaging in legal behavior in their off-time hours is detrimental because of the loss of highly trained and/or highly skilled personnel in vital roles.

This really isn't all that difficult to understand. Really, it's not.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

"I have yet to see how allowing gays to be openly gay helps the military"

It helps the military because now the military doesn't discriminate against its own soldiers. It's really that easy and obvious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

clawrence, I am hoping someone who was more recently honorably discharged, say from after the First Gulf War, could update my admittedly old assessment. I am hoping that such a reader here exists, and that the old bromide that "there are no stupid questions" works well enough for him or her to reply.

I am hoping such a reader is familiar enough with current training that s/he can outline how this will be done.

But I acknowledge your reply, although I simply disagree with its premise.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"This really isn't all that difficult to understand. Really, it's not.

Posted by: suekzoo1"

Nope, it's not. And in a few years, this won't even be a topic of discussion, and those who haven't been on the public record will pretend to have never taken that position and those who are on the public record will talk about how they have changed.

The fight isn't over, but this is a huge first step.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I should also acknowledge that I read Brigade's and ceflynline's replies to my question, on the previous topic. Ceflynline's was to the point in that he also thought this would solve rather than create problems in the USN. Brigade thinks this won't work [and I infer the following] in ground combat units. Brigade, if I have inferred too little or too much, jump in.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

How's about voting up or down on 150 or so pending political and judicial nominations?

Posted by: paul65 | December 19, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"And in a few years, this won't even be a topic of discussion, and those who haven't been on the public record will pretend to have never taken that position and those who are on the public record will talk about how they have changed."

Yes, I think the future with come replete with lots of apologies, just as there was for votes against the civil right act and the voting rights act, and McCain trying to make amends in 2008 for having opposed MLK's birthday being declared a federal holiday.

I was really quite surprised at Richard Burr and John Ensign, though, voting for final passage once cloture was reached. Their vote will not help them in the short-term, and may even possibly be detrimental. I guess they both must have been looking down range, and not wanting to have to correct their legacy sometime in the future. In all fairness, I have to commend them both for what they did. I could not have been easy.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Ensign voted for repeal?

Uh-oh, Tea Party. Better get on this one. I hear Sharron Angle is free.

As for Burr, I suppose you've got some interesting baggage if you're from Jesse Helms' state.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

fiona-

Well, in his/her "defense", there are occaisionally Senators who are appointed by the Governor of their states to fill a vacancy, ie: Gillibrand, Kirk, etc. which I'm sure you know. Hardly enough at any one time to "force" legislation, though they may tip the balance...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | December 19, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"I hear Sharron Angle is free."

Yup, and sbj has his checkbook out and ready for action!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Wow, what a way to spend a Sunday--arguing with incorrigible bigots and black-hearted fools who throw out the biggest words they know ("socialism," "pedophilia," "bestiality," etc.) the first chance they get in hopes of appearing the least bit coherent. You will never convince them, folks; they only recognize logic if it can be twisted to support their sadly unshakable beliefs. They are here to do one thing only, and that is to disrupt any meaningful, productive discussion. They are doing a decent job.

Let's do ourselves a favor and move on to Greg's question: What's next? Any thoughts on START, the 9/11 1st responder health care bill, and any other possibilities for the lame duck session?

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 19, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

billy: "the 9/11 1st responder health care bill"

Interesting...as I was reading your comment , CNN, which is playing in the background, was reporting that the bill is expected to come up for a vote on Tuesday! This would be a good thing! It's a national embarrassment that we have ignored the plight and ill health of the 1st responders for over nine years. Just simply shameful.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

billy_b: Instead of a budget, or even an omnibus, I think we are being treated to a short CR. That could be chaotic in April.

It seems new Start and 9/11 responders HC will pass, according to report in the WaPo.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't watch the Sunday morning shows much anymore, you can catch the highlights on line, so why bother. But I guess there was some discussion about the short-sightedness of Republicans for holding up the Dream Act. I was disappointed for all the young people here who are both anxious to pay their dues and become part of the fabric of the only home most of them have ever known.

I swear I read somewhere this morning that Reid was going to bring it up again this week but I can't find the quote again, so it must of been pre-coffee.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday, Senate Republicans blocked the DREAM Act from securing 60 votes to pass cloture, denying hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants a path to legal status if they enrolled in college or joined the military. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) even said yesterday on the Senate floor that young people lobbying his office had wasted their time.

Today on the Sunday political talk shows, guests from a wide array of the ideological spectrum assailed the GOP for blocking the measure:

NBC’s ANDREA MITCHELL: The dumbest thing that the Republicans did was the DREAM Act. … that is going to turn out to be a real setback for Republicans because these are people who wanted to serve in the military and get educated and contribute to the society.

NEWARK, NJ MAYOR CORY BOOKER: To tell people who’ve been through high school, high school presidents going on to college some of the best brains who have no relation to their home country. This is crazy. It’s hurting America.

GOP STRATEGIST MARK MCKINNON: The Republican Party has got to recognize Hispanics are the huge growing demographic in this country. … We gotta send the right signal to Hispanics in this country in addition to the fact that it’s the right policy.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"So you think that despite being a civilian who has never served a single day in the military YOU are competent enough to judge -- without doing ANY sort of factual analysis or research -- the complexity of how the military works, how troops socialize, how they have dealt with gays in the ranks, how gays act socially, and how gays act when they are performing military maneuvers?"

Obviously, it's people like Obama, Biden and Pelosi who are the experts.

Let me explain something to all the apoplectic lefties about supposed "comparisons" to homosexuality. They aren't comparisonss but examples of Socratic dialogue interposed to demostrate the inadequacy of your moral and sociological arguments for homosexuality. When you claim that homosexuality must be accepted as moral or right or healthy because it is unchosen, it is a perfectly proper response to point out other "orientations" or behaviors that are also unchosen but that no one contends are normal or right. It shows that your explanation is insufficient.

Bernie claims to be a fan of Socratic dialogue, so I would think he at least would understand this. But there is no accounting for liberal epistemic closure.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

GOP STRATEGIST MARK MCKINNON: The Republican Party has got to recognize Hispanics are the huge growing demographic in this country. … We gotta send the right signal to Hispanics in this country in addition to the fact that it’s the right policy.


Ims,

Thanks for those quotes about DREAM, especially the one above, which in a lot of ways is cynical by recognizing the shifting tides of the electorate, and only secondarily noting that the policy is proper.

I just don't get the GOP's position on this bill, and on immigration and the Hispanic vote, in general. I don't see how they help themselves in the long-term. They must think people have short memories, despite evidence to the contrary and the historical record. It's simply foolish for them to count on getting a bigger share of a dwindling market (older and whiter) as a path forward for more than a couple of additional election cycles. Voto Latino is projecting that 1.5 million new Hispanic voters, the vast majority of them young people, will be eligible to participate in the 2012 elections. The demographics of the voting population is changing rapidly, yet they continue to ignore the handwriting on the wall.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Someone above (clawrence?) asked, "How will dropping DADT help the forces?"

Really an odd question, isn't it? Here's another...

How does giving women the vote help the community?

Or the even more obvious...

"How does allowing African Americans to join the services help the services?"

Not to mention the even more parallel question...

"Why not, to prevent the internal discord that might follow from an integrated armed services, allow African Americans to join and serve so long as they color their skin and pretend they are really white?")

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

lmsinca said:

"What it boils down to is for those of us who have ever know and loved a friend, a family member or just someone in the community we respect and trust, the way they are wired sexually has no bearing on our feelings for them."

Surely you don't believe differences in attitudes toward homosexuality are explained by having ever known a homosexual or friend or family member who was one? You can't really mean that. If you do, I can assure you that you are wrong. You obviously feel morally superior, but your attitude is not determined by experience others lack.

"People should not be defined, when they are consenting adults, by their sexual preferences."

As far as I can tell, your side is the only one "defining" homosexuals on this basis. Indeed, your position is entirely based on the notion that homosexuality is a matter of personal identity, and it is your side that insists that homosexuals be accepted as such.

"Those of you lumping homosexuality into the same category as pedophilia and fetishes such as bestiality are clearly lacking in both understanding and experience with the gay community. It's both offensive and frustrating that these comparisons still exist."

See above. It is you who are lacking in understanding of basic reason. What is offensive is your presumptuous attitude that anyone who doesn't share your homophilia lacks knowledge or understanding, and worse, the knee-jerk response to all dissent as "bigotry" and "hatred." It is infantile on the one hand and a nascent totalitarian impulse on the other.


"It's time to appreciate the world as it exists and not some fantasy world you wish you lived in, where everyone lived up to your expectations and perfections."

Right back at you.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

""Really an odd question, isn't it? Here's another...

How does giving women the vote help the community?

Or the even more obvious...

"How does allowing African Americans to join the services help the services?""

Really a pathetic effort, Bernie. To see why, start with the fact that your examples are biological while homosexuality is behavioral.

Your sermonettes about careful reasoning and learning ring a bit hollow when you traffic in such sophistry.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

qb, as a gay man I can assure you that you truly do not know what you are talking about.

Not that that's ever stopped you.

Posted by: akaoddjob | December 19, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

aka,

Actually, you can't, particularly since there's nothing I just said about which being gay gives you any special insight, let alone authority. If you could refute anything I just said, you would do it rather than make a meaningless assertion.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

qb

"Innumerable types of behavior, thought, ideation, etc., are not chosen, in the same way, but nevertheless regarded by everyone as abnormal, deviant, immoral, destructive, etc. Indeed, refusing to act on such impulses, attactions, "orientations" is a key feature of morality and maturity accepted by just about everyone."

From your statement last night it appears you seem to be the one claiming the moral high ground. And I'm sure you know I don't use inflammatory language (hatred, bigotry) while disagreeing with someone. When people define homosexuality in the same sentence or thought as pedophiles, murderers etc. etc. I am lead to believe they actually don't know anyone on a personal level who is gay. It's a ridiculous and disappointing attitude.

Anyway, I'm out to run some final Christmas errands.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"Instead of a budget, or even an omnibus, I think we are being treated to a short CR. That could be chaotic in April."

Yeah, I shed a tear for the omnibus and DREAM. It's a crying shame. Has anybody heard of any promising next steps in these two arenas? I'm especially concerned about passing something resembling a responsible budget.

"It seems new Start and 9/11 responders HC will pass, according to report in the WaPo."

I've had a hard time getting a sense of how optimistic the prospects for those two items are now that DADT repeal has passed (and McConnell has tried to spark a rejection of START on his side of the aisle). It appears that Mark Kirk, who was previously undecided, is opposing it. I live in IL, and will be calling his offices often. Who else is a possible yes vote? It seems like far from a sure thing that all 9 Republicans who voted to debate it will ultimately vote for it. Are there any possibilities among Republicans who voted against going forward with debate?

As to the Zadroga bill, it seems that the optimism is fairly warranted. Besides Collins, who's sitting on the fence?

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 19, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

lms,

It's true you refrain from the name calling, so that's a fair response. Your compatriots as a rule don't.

The statement you quote really doesn't indicate a feeling of "moral high ground." It is a statement about moral reasoning, simply showing that the "choice" argument of the left fails as an argument.

Your statement above that people who don't accept the normalcy, etc., of homosexuality need to accept the world where people are imperfect is ironic, since that is precisely how people like me see the world and its people -- all imperfect in different ways, homosexuality being just one example. That is precisely why we are able NOT to "define" people by their flaws. Your side, on the other hand, defines homosexuals (and hetoros) by their sexuality.

As for comparisons, I'm not able to understand how you are unable to understand how comparsons you find "offensive" are refutations or the "not a choice" argument precsely BECAUSE you find them offensive. Your side asserts that homosexuality is morally good, etc., because it is not a choice. Yet many behavior and attractions that you would disapprove or even find repugnant are equally unchosen. That means the principle you are asserting is incorrect. you need a different argument than that it "is not a choice."

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

you need a different argument than that it "is not a choice."
----------------------------------------------------
Here's a different argument: It's the law.

Why should anyone engage in arguing with you about the repeal of DADT. It's over. Your side lost. Life goes on. Get with the program or get left behind.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 19, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Even expecting the worst of republicans, which is the logical attitude given their behavior, I didn't think they would try to kill the first responder's bill, after all the demagoguing about 9/11 -- just for the optics.

What's funny about this is even FOX of all places has ripped them a new one for it:

"Joining in on Jon Stewart's outrage over the failure of the 9/11
> first responders bill today was Fox News' Shep Smith, who asked: "How
> do they sleep at night?"
>
> Stewart devoted his whole show last night to gravely attacking Senate
> Republicans for voting against the bill, which would provide health
> care to the first responders on September 11.
>
> Shep was equally incensed: "Who's going to hold these people's feet
> to the fire? We're able to put a 52-story building so far down there
> at Ground Zero, we're able to pay for tax cuts for billionaires who
> don't need them and it's not going to stimulate the economy. But we
> can't give health care to Ground Zero first responders who ran right
> into the fire?"
>
> "It's disgusting," he continued. "It's a national disgrace, it's a
> shame and everybody who voted against it should have to stand up and
> account for himself or herself."
>
> Chris Wallace agreed: "It's a national shame."
>

-- I doubt if Shep Smith is going to last there... he seems to have a conscience and that is a fatal defect.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 19, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

QB said:
"To see why, start with the fact that your examples are biological while homosexuality is behavioral."

Same sex relationships are spread broadly across the animal world (including dolphins and chimps) and unless some groups within all those species are promoting a homosexual agenda, then it get difficult to make any sense of your assertion.

But the issues is an equal rights issue in any case. Religious affiliation and belief are not, you'd possibly agree, a matter of biological propensity but rather of socialized behaviors. Yet we (most of us) allow that jews and christians and buddhists ought to be considered to have equal access to all corners of our society, such as military. The biological/behavior differentiation is irrelevant here.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"People should not be defined, when they are consenting adults, by their sexual preferences."

QB1 replied: As far as I can tell, your side is the only one "defining" homosexuals on this basis. Indeed, your position is entirely based on the notion that homosexuality is a matter of personal identity, and it is your side that insists that homosexuals be accepted as such.

"Those of you lumping homosexuality into the same category as pedophilia and fetishes such as bestiality are clearly lacking in both understanding and experience with the gay community. It's both offensive and frustrating that these comparisons still exist."

QB1 replied: See above. It is you who are lacking in understanding of basic reason.

"How does allowing African Americans to join the services help the services?""

QB1 replied: Really a pathetic effort, Bernie. To see why, start with the fact that your examples are biological while homosexuality is behavioral.

QB1 asserted: "Innumerable types of behavior, thought, ideation, etc., are not chosen, in the same way, but nevertheless regarded by everyone as abnormal, deviant, immoral, destructive, etc. Indeed, refusing to act on such impulses, attactions, "orientations" is a key feature of morality and maturity accepted by just about everyone."

Suppose, QB1, that homosexuality is merely "behavioral" and not "a matter of personal identity", and that homosexual acts are "deviant" and "immoral", etc.

What is the relevance of that supposition, without other evidence of doing harm to unwilling participants, to whether or not selected homosexuals, trained and disciplined, can be effective soldiers, sailors, and airmen?

If the military is willing to accept its homosexual troops and enlist more, albeit with caveats about situations the military itself wants to control (my shorthand for the testimony I heard, even from the Marine Commandant) why is it wise for the United States Congress to limit the supply of volunteers?

Finally, on this subject, what do civilian opponents of homosexuals serving in the military gain from limiting the pool of available talent?

Is the argument against permitting homosexuals serving "openly" merely about the openness, or is it about homosexuality?

If it is merely about openness, is the issue that the civilian observer fears that a heterosexual soldier will not support his known homosexual counterpart under fire?

Is the issue that the civilian observer believes that openly homosexual sailors bring shame and dishonor to their colleagues?

Is the issue that the civilian observer believes that the known lesbian pilot will not bomb the enemy as ordered, but that the closet lesbian will?

Please clarify.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | December 19, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Let me explain something to all the apoplectic lefties about supposed "comparisons" to homosexuality. They aren't comparisonss but examples of Socratic dialogue interposed to demostrate the inadequacy of your moral and sociological arguments for homosexuality. When you claim that homosexuality must be accepted as moral or right or healthy because it is unchosen, it is a perfectly proper response to point out other "orientations" or behaviors that are also unchosen but that no one contends are normal or right. It shows that your explanation is insufficient."

I agree. The morality of homosexuality is independent on its etiology. Even if sexual orientation was decided through conscious choice, it's still morally acceptable and bigoted to discriminate against it.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

As long as we engage with the QB's of the world about what is the law, or will shortly be the law, it gives their arguments power. They lost the argument. As progressives, I think we should pro-gress. Looking back, and rehashing the tired stereotypes that just failed to carry enough votes, prevents all of us from moving on. I don't see qb's arguments as anything more than holding onto the past, when the present has swept it aside.

Some people can change with the times, some can not. Some people can tolerate political loss, some can not. So what? It's irrelevant because change happens and life continues.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 19, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"the knee-jerk response to all dissent as "bigotry" and "hatred." It is infantile on the one hand and a nascent totalitarian impulse on the other."

It ain't knee jerk unless you are like 150 years old with a crappy patellar reflex. You guys have had years to come up with some explanation that doesn't involve bigotry or hatred. This thing has been in place for 17 years now? And you STILL can't defend it without bigotry and hatred? Not knee jerk at all. There's simply no other dimension to your side.

As for being totalitarian, it's called doing what's right. I can disagree with people all day on economic policy, to go into war in Iraq, the benefits of upper tax cuts and still be friends with them.

But if you are a racist or a homophobe, you are scum of the earth. And there is no other dimension to my side and there is no compromise to that. None.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The democrats simply do not understate they are elected to represent the people


not their little cabal of special interests.


The American People will NEVER FORGET how the democrats HYJACKED THEIR GOVERNMENT


Shameful


The democrats LOST the election. They just don't get it.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

12BB, I think it's ok to argue established law. That's kind of the point of this board, to discuss stuff even if it doesn't lead to change in policy.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

What happened yesterday was NOT LEGITIMATE


The democrats lost the election


What happened was certainly ANTI-DEMOCRATIC AND AGAINST THE ELECTION.

Shameful


The democrats have put the final nail in their party - they CAN NOT BE TRUSTED.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

http://www.alternet.org/media/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@RFR - If you are going to keep repeating yourself you at least ought to learn how to spell "hijack".

As regards winning elections and what follows from that, Obama did win the presidency.

And will it follow, for you, when Dems have held majorities in the house and/or senate that, therefore, whatever policies and political theories they espouse must gain the acceptance of yourself?

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

BERNIE

You are a troll and you have broken all thread-bombing records


Your desire to silence people is UNAMERICAN


Please go to North Korea as soon as possible.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

DADT was always first and foremost about making certain the military was a safe place to be a bigot.

Posted by: akaoddjob | December 19, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

ETHAN

You thread bomb like Bernie

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

12BB, I think it's ok to argue established law. That's kind of the point of this board, to discuss stuff even if it doesn't lead to change in policy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like a waste of time to me, since we just went through months of this debate and the social conservatives lost in Congress. We've heard it all, all the connections to bestiality and pedophilia, the ominous threats that civilization would end, and that God condemns homosexualtiy. Their arguments did not carry the day. But, still they argue - hoping that somebody will take the other side.

In fact, to be honest, their arguments are boring and artifacts of an earlier age.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 19, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf

Here is the whole UMD study. Democrats get some things wrong too.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

What the democrats did yesterday was anti-democracy and unAmerican


They lost the election


The disrespect of the American People is astonishing and contempt is probably a better word

This will be repealed


WE ARE TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK !


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday's action was NOT legitimate


It will be repealed on that basis


The democrats LOST THE ELECTION How much more disrespect can you show the American People???

..

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Seems like a waste of time to me, since we just went through months of this debate and the social conservatives lost in Congress. We've heard it all, all the connections to bestiality and pedophilia, the ominous threats that civilization would end, and that God condemns homosexualtiy. Their arguments did not carry the day. But, still they argue - hoping that somebody will take the other side.

In fact, to be honest, their arguments are boring and artifacts of an earlier age.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain "

So you aren't saying that we shouldn't argue this because it's established law, but rather, because their arguments are bigoted and moronic. I agree with that.

But then again, the right wingers just go and see what Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin says on tv and then run on here to repeat it.

That was kind of the intent of Journolist when its creator decided to exclude right wingers. So that they wouldn't spend their time discussing on whether a wheel is round and instead have a higher plane of discussion.

As opposed to a place like this where it's "the stimulus saved jobs!" "no it didn't" "look, here are three economics studies and a CBO report showing that it did" "but look, here are sean hannity, glenn beck AND sarah palin saying it didn't!"

And so forth.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

THESE FOOLS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY


DRASTIC ACTION MUST BE TAKEN !!!!!


A CALL TO ARMS !!!!! PREPARE NOW !!!

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse


LIST OF TRAITORS


Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.),


Susan Collins (Maine),


Mark Kirk (Ill.),


Lisa Murkowski (Alaska),


Olympia Snowe (Maine) and


George Voinovich (Ohio)


Shameful

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse


Our government has been HYJACKED


The government's only legitimacy comes from the consent of the governed.


CLEARLY, the last election has proven that the AMERICAN PEOPLE do not want this kind of governing


WHAT do the liberals do ???

The liberals continue with their agenda WIHOUT CONSENT

THEY LOST THE ELECTION


This is a HIJACKING

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Mark:

Sorry if I wasn't emphatic enough, but essentially the effects of repeal of DADT will be so small that only an expert will be able to find them. Right now the Army's most pressing problem is surviving the excessive deployments Caused by George and Dick running two wars on a peace time Army that was understrength for its peacetime duties. Its biggest retention problem right now is mid grade officers, because it can't replace the exhausted captains, majors, and lieutenant colonels who are getting out in excessive numbers. The actual result of repeal of DADT on enlistments and reenlistments will be so small, compared to the exodus of worn out soldiers who leave before they can get their fifth or sixth combat tour will make the few whose only reason is that gays and lesbians can serve openly disappear in the statistical noise. That has been the experience of every NATO country so far that has dropped restrictions on gays and lesbians. No real effect on the combat brigades, no effect on combat support battalions, no effect on rear support. Nothing. There will be instances of individuals who act up and therefor get out one way or another, but there will be no particular exodus, because where the gay and lesbian soldiers are already in place they will already be established, and incoming replacements will be integrated into the units just as every other replacement is integrated. attitudes won't necessarily change when applied to the gay soldier not in the unit, but the men and women in the units and those coming in will just be more grunts or DATs or truck drivers or mechanics... They will learn to do their jobs just as always. Same for the Air Forge. F15 mechanics will still have to be small enough to crawl into the air intakes and hook up control cables blind because there isn't room in there to turn around and look. Paramedics of the para kind will still learn to rappel into forests wearing football type face guards to keep from getting their faces beat to death.

The jobs will get done and the unit bonds will be formed.

Unless you are an experienced NCO you will never notice any difference at all.

And for the insignificant handful of recalcitrant homophobes who bail there will be far more gays and lesbians who join. I suspect that fewer than two thousand troops will leave because of repeal, and most of them will really leave because they are ground down by the current pace of forward deployment.

Implementation will be an official program and an otherwise non-event.

Posted by: ceflynline | December 19, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

It is wrong to engage in social engineering after one's party loses an election


The legitimacy is just not there.


The government has been HYJACKED. No one can trust these people ever again.


It is amazing that instead of finding ways to built his legitimay, Obama acts in ways which smell of lacking in legitimacy - Obama cares little if he has the support of the People.


Even, this debate the American people were being TOLD which surveys to believe - the entire debate (like partial birth abortion) was tinged with manipulation and outright lying. Finally, intimidation tactics and false charges have become commonplace. Obama is our fist Orwellian President.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

You promised to leave the blog Then you turned that into a LIE by becoming the leading thread-bomber


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

It is time to pull the plug on RFR... repeating identical posts,jamming the board with long posts with spacing that makes scrolling past it cumbersome, inciting violence and advocating murder of elected officials -- don't you agree that this constitutes every aspect of 'spamming?'

This guy destroyed The Fix -- drove everyone away. Look at it these days -- maybe 12 posts a day. Almost everyone who was there is here now... and now he's trying to shut down the discussion here too.

Posted by: fiona5 | December 19, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I should also acknowledge that I read Brigade's and ceflynline's replies to my question, on the previous topic. Ceflynline's was to the point in that he also thought this would solve rather than create problems in the USN. Brigade thinks this won't work [and I infer the following] in ground combat units. Brigade, if I have inferred too little or too much, jump in.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 1:32 PM
------

If it's the law, it will have to work. The only question is how messy it will be. You're probably right to solicit opinions from people who have served since you and me; I know nothing about the Navy, and I'm sure things have changed in the other branches. When I was in the Army, I probably wouldn't have recognized a homosexual if I'd fallen over one---it just wasn't on my mind. I don't know how discipline has held up over the years. When I was in school, a teacher could slap the sh*t out of you if you got too far out of line. Now the teacher would be fired and sued and, consequently, many of the nation's classrooms are unruly. If calling someone a vile name gets you bounced out of the service today, then things have definitely changed. Some of the D.I.s I remember didn't have command of more than three words in the English language that wouldn't be considered profanity by today's standards. See Lee Ermey in the first act of FULL METAL JACKET---that's really how it was.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

You disrespect democracy itself and then you have the nerve to complain about someone else

what a joke

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

It's tempting to argue with commenters like quarterback1 since it sometimes seem like they might be willing to have a real, substantive debate. Don't be fooled. I've watched these "debates" go round and round in circles for days, with no progress made whatsoever, and trust me, it won't end any time soon. They will continue to make the same failed, thinly veiled excuses for their bigotry until the cows come home; their belief systems are impervious to even the most patient, well-reasoned arguments possible. Time to dismiss them for the sad bigots they are and move on to more pressing issues.

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 19, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

let's not forget than obama had NOTHING to do with the repeal. He punted on it, and congress got it done

Posted by: newagent99 | December 19, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Illinois did have a special election


Liam is correct except tht the term is six years

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

@ddawd,

Sometimes, reading this blog is like Groundhog Day over and over again. We haven't even passed a single day with the new law in effect, to add something new - like real life - to the argument. Today is just a continuance of the same arguments before the vote was taken.

There are arguments worth having - over issues that are, in part, based on facts. Arguments about an issue that is entirely based on personal opinion is just about the closest thing to a waste of time as possible. No one changes opinion in such cases. The simple way to deal with personal opinion issues is to take the vote, count the votes, and the majority gets their way.

So, the public opinion polls and the military poll were key in winning the argument. It's all about how the majority *believes*, since DADT is a *belief* issue.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 19, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Fiona

Go

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Fiona

Go

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

fiona,

The only reason the rest of us aren't complaining about Rainy is because we are using the Troll Hunter script. We will help you install it, if you ask. Greg promised a change to the comments section, but it hasn't happened yet. Believe me, the blog is much more fun with Troll Hunter.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 19, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Fiona

The way you disrespect the American People is astonishing


We know you don't like the First Amendment


And you dont like the Second and Tenth Amendments either


Are there any other parts of the Bill of Rights which you hate as well???

________________

OR do you believe that CIVIL RIGHTS is just for people who YOU agree with ???

How much more shameful and disgraeful can you be ???

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

fiona5, get the troll hunter script. Everyone is ignoring rainforest because no one sees his posts.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade: "just keep thinking that the November election was not a choice of Republicans over Democrats"

It was. A choice made by predominantly OLDER, more CONSERVATIVE voters than the average voter.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | December 19, 2010 11:34 AM
-------

I believe the results still count. By some perverseness of logic you seem to be suggesting that the "average" voters are the ones who didn't vote. But they're the intelligent ones, right?

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

That Maryland study was pretty interesting. Seems like MSNBC viewers are the most knowledgeable group in terms of the issues covered in the study. Even more so than NPR and people who get their news from newspapers.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Fiona


Answer the question


Do you think the First Amendment is just for people who agree with YOU ???

Maybe the plug should be pulled on those people who disrespect the Bill of Rights - as you have done repeatedly


Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of Rainforest, if we must, one theory that has been thoroughly discredited is the effect of ignoring someone. We're been told repeatedly that if you ignore someone long enough, they will go away.

Rainforest is living proof that is not true. He writes on, even though no one sees his posts.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | December 19, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

A couple of Liam's greatest hits of the day:

I think those people know more about military affairs than hate mongering vermin, such as Clawrence and Brigade.

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 11:33 AM


Clawrence and Brigade are sounding more and more like Senator Larry Craig, and Pastor Ted Haggard.

Me thinks; Clawrence and Brigade doth protest too much!

Posted by: Liam-still | December 19, 2010 11:43 AM
------

So I'm hate-mongering vermin, but Liam is the one demonstrating bigotry: suggesting a straight person is gay is quite the insult in Liam's troubled world. Larry Craig must have stepped on his toe.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

ON January 3rd this democratic CIRCUS will be over

I wonder if the liberals want to suspend the rest of the Constitution


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

"They could be fired for being gay, if they were found out. They were forced to HIDE who they are. TO LIE about it. Now they don't have to. They can be who they are. Posted by: suekzoo1"

They could be fired for being accused of being gay. Proof wasn't always necessary, just sufficient suspicion. Since the Discharges were mostly honorable those soldiers being run out on suspicion didn't fight, lest they face court martial and discharge under other than honorable conditions.

Now, it no longer making any difference at all, soldiers who bring odd traits into the service need not worry that their obsession with duplicate bridge tournaments, or wandering all over the cities around Yokosuka alone will get them a reputation as gay or lesbian when what they really are is naturally curious and not interested in sinking large quantities of money in the military strip just outside the main entrance to Yokosuka Naval Base.

Odd balls who like to wander foreign countries alone rather than run the bars with their shipmates are vulnerable to the whisperers who decide that the tourist must be gay because he doesn't pay too much for beer in a navy bar that regularly gets trashed by WESTPAC Cruise crews on their last night in port. They won't travel a block outside the local bar strip, and are suspicious of others who do. Until DADT nothing short of a court martial for actual illegal behavior could get you run out of the service.

After DADT annonymous complaints that some loner "must" be gay could have real deleterious effects on those same loners.

I was just such a loner, and ran all over the Riviera of japan, which is what the Kanagawa panninsula plus Kamakura and Enoshima and their environs were. Never found anyone who wanted to go with me, so I went alone, afoot, everywhere.

Under DADT I wouldn't have dared. The rumors would have been fatal.

More than just gays and Lesbians gain from this repeal. Intelligent and curious service people of all ranks can now safely explore the Far east on their own without worrying about the perceptions of the Green Street sailors. (Green Street was an area in Pusan where the bars mostly catered to GIs. Prices were astoundingly high for everything, and the restaurants were extraordinarily bad considering what was available, a couple blocks away, at much lower prices.)

Posted by: ceflynline | December 19, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

That Maryland study was pretty interesting. Seems like MSNBC viewers are the most knowledgeable group in terms of the issues covered in the study. Even more so than NPR and people who get their news from newspapers.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 6:01 PM
-----

Studies are always interesting when they tell us what we want to hear and already believe. Schultz? Olbermann? Maddow? O'Donnell? Deep thinkers all. And unbiased! Veritable founts of knowledge.

Posted by: Brigade | December 19, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

"What is the relevance of that supposition, without other evidence of doing harm to unwilling participants, to whether or not selected homosexuals, trained and disciplined, can be effective soldiers, sailors, and airmen?"

I'm not sure that particular premise is particularly relevant in an of itself. It is more that the opposite premise is the basis of the left's insistence that disapproval of homosexuality is bigoted, which is used to delegitimize resistance to living with homosexuals, etc. Of course, objections based on personal privacy and dignity, and avoidance of romantic entanglements, don't depend at all on "choice" or morality.

"If the military is willing to accept its homosexual troops and enlist more ..."

As the Spartans said to Phillip of Macedon, "if."

The rest of your questions are rather in bad faith, I sense, since answers are well known to anyone who has paid any attention.

DDAWD said:

"it's still morally acceptable and bigoted to discriminate against it."

An assertion I see you make over and over but without any explanation or basis. Thus, I conclude again that the only real bigotry is yours, because your condemnation of those who have a different view of the moral and social status of homosexuality is no more than uninformed and unexamined prejudice.

12bb said:

"As long as we engage with the QB's of the world about what is the law . . ."

As is often the case, your train of thought is bizarre and largely incoherent.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"let's not forget than obama had NOTHING to do with the repeal. He punted on it, and congress got it done."

Do you really believe this? Are you hoping for a primary challenge in 2012? Do you realize that such a move would virtually guarantee a Republican winning the presidency?

Pretty much all serious observers are giving Obama HUGE credit for taking the long view on this issue and sticking with an intelligent, well-planned strategy that set the stage for yesterday's vote. I'd be curious to see the reasoning behind your assertion.

Posted by: billy_burdett | December 19, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

"Same sex relationships are spread broadly across the animal world (including dolphins and chimps) and unless some groups within all those species are promoting a homosexual agenda, then it get difficult to make any sense of your assertion."

Not at all. My assertion was simply that race and sex are biological while homosexuality is behavioral. Reference to animals in no way refutes that obvious truth. If you mean to suggest that animal behavior validates human behavior, I'm afraid that will be rather problematic.

"But the issues is an equal rights issue in any case. Religious affiliation and belief are not, you'd possibly agree, a matter of biological propensity but rather of socialized behaviors. Yet we (most of us) allow that jews and christians and buddhists ought to be considered to have equal access to all corners of our society, such as military. The biological/behavior differentiation is irrelevant here."

The biological/behavior differentiation is relevant to the rhetorical quesions you originally asked, which compared homosexuality to race and sex. By doing so, you appealed to the common "predetermined and not a choice" argument.

I would of course agree that religious beliefs are not biologically determined, but then that only raises questions of whether they are behaviorally or psychologically (or whatever categorization you choose) equivalent to homosexuality and whether they have similar moral status and deserve the same social treatment (setting aside the constitutional issue raised by religion). To say that they are matters of socialization or environment (which I would not entirely accept, but for other reasons) of course does not in and of itself answer these questions.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD said:

"it's still morally acceptable and bigoted to discriminate against it."

An assertion I see you make over and over but without any explanation or basis. Thus, I conclude again that the only real bigotry is yours, because your condemnation of those who have a different view of the moral and social status of homosexuality is no more than uninformed and unexamined prejudice."

This isn't a scientific journal article. I'm not going to cite evidence. Does it matter? Suppose I show you 20 publications showing that the stimulus has created jobs, will you be convinced? Supposed I show you a thousand books explaining why evolution is an actual phenomenon, is that going to make you even consider that possibility? Suppose I show you the hundreds of publishings and findings corroborating the existence of global warming, will that hold an ounce of the weight that Sean Hannity showing video of snow would hold?

Of course not. And I don't care. If you think it's ok to be a bigot, then go be a bigot. If you have kids, they will apologize on your behalf in the future.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that the gay community needs scientific studies to attempt to try to make the case that they are "normal?"


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | December 19, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

"That means the principle you are asserting is incorrect. you need a different argument than that it "is not a choice.""

qb, I wasn't actually making that argument, although I do believe it is not a choice, I realize you already disagree with that. My argument is it's time to accept people as they are, not as you wish them to be and that sexual preference has no bearing on the ability to perform a job whether in the military, education, government, medicine or any other discipline as long as the interest and ability exists for said vocation. But mainly, I object to all the people here, including you, who have been using the words, pedophile, bestiality, murderer, immoral etc. in the same context as homosexual. And yes, I understand your distinction but you're still making the comparison whether you mean to or not.

12Bar and others from the Fix, just so you know most of us are happy to see you here at the Plumline, you're an interesting addition to Greg's blog. However, please don't presume to lecture me or anyone else who to engage with or ignore. Qb and I have been going around the mulberry tree for about a year and a half now and apparently on some level enjoy our debates. You're free to ignore us if you choose. He likes to accuse me of thinking I'm morally superior when I get under his skin. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I'll say this for DDAWD, his arrogance and presumptuousness does match his ignorance. Sad performance.I thank God my children, bio and adopted, won't be indoctrinated with twisted thinking like yours.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

"Qb and I have been going around the mulberry tree for about a year and a half now and apparently on some level enjoy our debates."

I have come to accept my sickness.

Sometimes I just like to argue, but I will say for lms that she is the one lefty here I've found it is possible to have something of an honest discussion with. Would that there were more, rather than the typical "You're just a bigot" routine of folks like DDAWD.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 19, 2010 7:56 PM | Report abuse

Benen makes an interesting observation re the recent study on media viewing and correct/incorrect notions of reality...

"This point, in particular, seems especially noteworthy -- in some cases, regular Fox News viewers would have done better, statistically speaking, if they had received no news at all and simply guessed whether the claims about current events were accurate."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027163.php

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

So what was the approach of FOX on going after UMD? Are they a leftist institution or just a party school?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 8:30 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - Here's the statement from the senior VP at FOX...

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/18/fox-vp-attacks-maryland/

He decided to go with the "party" theme. But of course that necessarily entails drugs, alcohol, truancy and flagrant boners - lefty stuff.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Mike Tomasky on repeal...

"It's a great historic moment, the repeal of the don't ask don't tell law, allowing gay people to serve openly in the military, making the US just about the last advanced country to reach this very normal point.

John McCain, on whose increasingly shabby escutcheon this blot will linger, argued on the Senate floor Saturday that there's no proof that the policy has hurt the armed services. Bollocks. We know that more than 13,000 people, presumably most of them otherwise good to exemplary, have been booted from the military because of their sexuality. And of course it is impossible to know how many talented young people who were eager to lend their talents to their country simply didn't bother. If 13,000 people were kicked out and X number who wanted to couldn't serve, I'd say that's damage." (more at link)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/dec/19/us-politics-us-military-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Here's a really nice analysis of the FOX Viewers Are Stupid "study."

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=19990

Reminds me of that Harvard study that was touted during the HC cramdown that said something like not having insurance is a death sentance, versus having health insurance guarantee's eternal life even though insurance companies are pure evil and will drop you as soon as you get sick.

We are, however, about due for the quarterly study that says conservatism is a mental disorder. bernie, can you tea that up for us?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

(Snicker)

Sarah Palin went home to Anchorage this weekend on her tour with her lastest book. From what I've read and heard, the crowds are much smaller this time, and sales have dropped significantly from "Going Rogue."

The Anchorage Daily News marked the occasion of her tour with this headline:
------------------
Hundreds line up for Palin book signing at Anchorage store

'AMERICA BY HEART': Portable toilets outside weren't needed.
--------------------

http://www.adn.com/2010/12/18/1610805/hundreds-line-up-for-palin-book.html?story_link=email_msg#ixzz18c5KLnVO

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Ezra on state of Romney's healthcare system...

"More than 98 percent - 98 percent! - of the state's residents now have health insurance, as do more than 99 percent of the state's children."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121702366.html?hpid=news-col-blog

That's the sort of consequence to be expected when an anti-American socialist gains power.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

@sue - that was simply naughty of you

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 9:20 PM | Report abuse

"Here's a really nice analysis of the FOX Viewers Are Stupid "study."

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=19990"

I liked the part where the author says that TARP was passed with overwhelming Republican support in the Senate, but it was passed in the House after the Senate, so the fate of TARP was really in the House, not the Senate.

Wonderful analysis.

Also this one.

"Most significantly, the projected savings over 10 years only works if you assume that no further “doc fix” will be passed (as it already has been). Had the doc fix been included in the bill, it would move the numbers by nearly $400 billion over the decade. That means that instead of shaving $100 billion off the deficit, the bill with the doc fix would add as much as $200 billion."

So the Dem's "trick" was to have the presuppose that a provision would not be in the new law. And how did they do it? By not including it in the new law.

Dastardly.

It's kind of like how the Republicans got the CBO to say the deficit would be reduced on...oh wait, nothing the Republicans did lowered the deficit.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

bernie,

I was just reading that article about Romneycare. Ya gotta feel for poor Mittens. The healthcare reform he advocated and signed into law is successful and is working pretty well. It's something he should be able to point to in a presidential campaign, but alas, it's gonna be a constant burr under his saddle instead....

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 9:23 PM | Report abuse

bernie: "@sue - that was simply naughty of you"

You laughed, didn't ya!

LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 9:25 PM | Report abuse

"So the Dem's "trick" was to have the presuppose that a provision would not be in the new law. And how did they do it? By not including it in the new law.

Dastardly."

But your stupid if you think that there would be no projected savings from the Obamacare disaster.

Just out of curiosity, do you or others here actually believe the CBO estimates on the cost of this abomination?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Guess while I'm at it, I may as well point out that the CBO director's testimony mentioned in that link was about a year before the passage of the final bill.

But hey, it was a Conservative saying Conservative Things. So you have to agree with it. I understand.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 9:31 PM | Report abuse

ps...still nothing from Palin on facebook or twitter re DADT.

She's likely busy baking gizzard-chip cookies for the festive season.

@DDAWD - I took a look at that link too and briefly (some fraction of a second) considered taking up some of the content but...with whom?

UMD had published a report back in 2003 which I've linked a few times here since Greg started the blog. Similar results re FOX viewers even then.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

If you read the Anchorage Daily News article, it goes on to say that they were prepared for 1000+ people, expected some to camp out overnight in the parking lot, and so had prepared by renting pot-o-pots, but no one showed until morning, and then only a few hundred.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Enraged in defeat, an angry bigot snarled:

"Surely you don't believe differences in attitudes toward homosexuality are explained by having ever known a homosexual or friend or family member who was one?"

==

Differences in attitudes toward gays are EXACTLY explained by familiarity with them.

As long as gays let themselves be defined by mental cases in motorcylce caps and feather boas whose mosst enjoyable recreation was being offensive, it was easy for stereotypes such as you promote to carry weight and enrage people.

It was when the other 98% of gays started to come out to their families and coworkers that bigotry such as yours became odd, then absurd, and now anathema.

The real heroes in yesterdays victory for equality and defeat for you bigots are those who had the courage to be nonchalantl *openly* gay at work. I did my part.

The American military will include "openly" gay men and women. Men will stand beside their male partners at family functions. Lesbian will kiss in front of the podium.

Swallow it and choke, BIGOT

Posted by: caothien9 | December 19, 2010 9:36 PM | Report abuse

"Just out of curiosity, do you or others here actually believe the CBO estimates on the cost of this abomination?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut"

No, Sean Hannity says that it will add gazillions of dollars to the deficit and that the tax cuts will reduce the deficit and I believe him because I'm a Conservative and so I believe Conservative Things.

By the author's logic, TARP was passed with unanimous Republican support since George Bush signed it into law, thus the fate of TARP rested in his hands. hahahahaha

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

Still curious, do you believe the CBO estimates of the cost of Obamacare?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

"@DDAWD - I took a look at that link too and briefly (some fraction of a second) considered taking up some of the content but...with whom?"

Yeah, but that line about the Senate vote not counting since it was first was too funny not to share.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 9:44 PM | Report abuse

cao

"Differences in attitudes toward gays are EXACTLY explained by familiarity with them.

As long as gays let themselves be defined by mental cases in motorcylce caps and feather boas whose mosst enjoyable recreation was being offensive, it was easy for stereotypes such as you promote to carry weight and enrage people.

It was when the other 98% of gays started to come out to their families and coworkers that bigotry such as yours became odd, then absurd, and now anathema."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank-you, you said it much better than I did. People are beginning to catch up but there are still some stragglers out there. Frankly, I was shocked and surprised the repeal managed to get the votes, very encouraging. I do think Obama had a play in it though and I give him credit for it.

Posted by: lmsinca | December 19, 2010 10:01 PM | Report abuse

@sue - yes, I read the piece. Book sales and crowds are diminishing broadly now. As I noted last week, her overall profile is likewise diminishing and that really can be seen, I think, to begin right after the elections. I've been trying to figure this out.

It's consequent with growing critical comment from GOP establishment figures or (as in the case of Limbaugh, ignoring her where previously feted). But also, as her polling figures continue to collapse, I suspect the mainstream media in its lust for horse-race drama are less entranced. And, of course, that polling decline reflects a rather belated recognition of the damsel's frailties.

My hope is that she'll pull a McCain and get so petulant that she'll mess up the coalition enough to do some electoral damage.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 10:02 PM | Report abuse

quarterback, how can you debate someone who refuses to tell you whether those with fetishes such as bestiality are also consenting adults with sexual preferences? I think a very relevant question is if we are going to amend UCMJ to allow for that too.

Posted by: clawrence12 | December 19, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

addendum - she was needed and helpful for the last election cycle but her usefulness now in activating the base is on a collision course with the dangers that arise if she actually runs. The smart folks on the right know this. That's their problem.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 19, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Future reactions: now that soldiers can be candid (I think it's time we retired "openly gay") about their orientations we're going to see military spokesmen in the news who aren't going to match the effeminate stereoptype the bigots promote at all, Worth noting that a lot of gays are extremely masculine and, to borrow a word from a president who wasn't, "tough."

When we see gay soldiers being decorated for valor and courage, for heroic performance, it's going to be harder and harder for these losers like QB and Brigade to trot out their 50s-era stereotypes.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 19, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

"And, of course, that polling decline reflects a rather belated recognition of the damsel's frailties."

What do you perceive those "frailties" to be?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD,

Still curious, do you believe the CBO estimates of the cost of Obamacare?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut"

It's the best estimate we've got and could be a conservative estimate of deficit reduction just as easily as it could be too optimistic. I'm certain that they aren't off by the trillions of dollars that Sean Hannity says they are.

There, now you can go to your Conservative Club Meeting and tell them the Liberal Thing That The Liberal Said and then tell yourselves how smart you are for believing Conservative Things.

I'm honored.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 10:14 PM | Report abuse

"addendum - she was needed and helpful for the last election cycle but her usefulness now in activating the base is on a collision course with the dangers that arise if she actually runs. The smart folks on the right know this. That's their problem.

Posted by: bernielatham"

And their best candidate has a tyrannical timebomb for democracy that he needs to explain away.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca:

I fought long and hard within the gay community against this sort of behavior, pointing out that a program based on shock and offensiveness was political suicide. And for most of the time I was involved in gay politics my view was as far outside the mainstream as QBs is today.

Rage and offensiveness were the very bedrock of gay politics, and gays involved in what they called political activism wanted nothing more than an auditotorium of heterosexuals strapped into seats and forced to listen how much they hated them.

And then there were those horrid pride parades, hijacked every year by shock troops who used the safety of numbers to be as offensive and lewd as they could manage, and of course the donations to the AFA would come rolling in. Idiots.

They lost too.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 19, 2010 10:19 PM | Report abuse

"There, now you can go to your Conservative Club Meeting and tell them the Liberal Thing That The Liberal Said and then tell yourselves how smart you are for believing Conservative Things.

I'm honored."

I know this is supposed to be "cutting" but I honestly don't get it. I'm not a member of any club, what have I written that makes you think so, so I can clear that misconception up? Obviously, you cannot be the only one here to think this. Also, why would I want to tell anybody what somebody else wrote on a blog? Is that common etiquette, to tell others what others wrote to you?

If it's any consolation, I've never believed I am smart, nor do I suspect, does anybody else here. In fact, I don't even know what I don't know.

Also, why would you be honored that someone on an anonymous blog asked you a question? Isn't that kind of the point?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 10:24 PM | Report abuse

c9,

You apparently haven't a shred of interest in the distaff soldiers and sailors affected by the repeal.

In that light your 10:07pm is just wierd. At best, myopic in it's single focus, at worst stereotypical and bigoted.

I thought the repeal was to forward equality and enhance the effectiveness of the services, not to dispel some POV's of which you disapprove.

Posted by: tao9 | December 19, 2010 10:25 PM | Report abuse

bernie: "@sue - yes, I read the piece. Book sales and crowds are diminishing broadly now. As I noted last week, her overall profile is likewise diminishing and that really can be seen, I think, to begin right after the elections. I've been trying to figure this out."

I don't think there is much mystery in what's happening. It's kind of a classic case of her being fun to date, but not for marrying.

All the polls show her with escalating negatives. Even the majority of Republicans say she's not qualified for POTUS. The hits she's taking from inside the GOP are mild at this point, but designed to send her a message. It will be interesting to see how she reacts to it all. Part of me thinks her ego could rule the day, and make her run just to "show them, " and shake things up. But, who knows... I do think she will attempt to keep as much leverage as she can for as long as she can. But her influence seems to be waning.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 19, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

What do you perceive those "frailties" to be?

==

Better to ask, what are her strengths?

Palin's is a simpleminded message. The authenticity of a small-town poorly-educated woman aflame with patriotism and faith. It's no more sophisticated an image than something created for a 30-second ad campaign, like Madge the manicurist promoting Palmolive.

Palin has had two years to bone up on policy issues, and she hasn't cracked a book. Instead she's put her name on two books written by other people in a brazen effort to cash in on her flash in the pan popularity. Frailties? Legion. Strengths? One. The ability to rile up nasty stupid people with hate rhetoric. A lot of people who once found her authentic ("down to earth") now see her as shallow and inadequate. Her star is falling steadily and a solid majority have decided that she isn't fit to hold public office,much less the presidency. This isn't likely to change.

Short answer: she's stupid.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 19, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"she's stupid."

What's your evidence she's stupid?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"I know this is supposed to be "cutting" but I honestly don't get it. I'm not a member of any club, what have I written that makes you think so"

It's that you come on an anonymous message board, you're not running for office, you're not a talking head on TV or a right wing author. Yet you insist on coming on here and spouting conservative nonsense despite the fact that pretty much on any given issue, you are at odds with anyone with any expertise on the subject. I mean seriously, that last link you posted was utter nonsense.

Obviously the Conservative Club meetings is hyperbole, but you and the other Conservatives come on here and keep espousing these points with no evidence other than you heard someone say it on TV. Yeah, it might be a liberal view to think the ACA is deficit reducing, the stimulus created jobs, Bush's tax cuts didn't lower deficits, global warming is a real phenomenon, and evolution is real, but I can point to mounds of evidence that supports these views (which is why I harbor them in the first place) You've got nothing to support anything you say. I can point you to the CBO report. And what do you point me to? A testimony that took place a year before the CBO report came out involving a different bill. And you point me to a nonsensical argument about the doc fix. You're lying. And why? This is an anonymous message board.

And no matter how much evidence is thrown your way, you insist on spouting the Conservative Things. Now I'm guessing you don't go to a club with cookies and coffee, but being a Conservative is what you consider to be your identity and so you feel the need to believe and say Conservative Things no matter how much evidence there is that you are wrong. It's because you care more about being Conservative than about being informed.

Either that, or you're like getting paid to do this, but I'm assuming that's not the case.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 10:45 PM | Report abuse

"the stimulus created jobs"

Do your stuff. Mounds of evidence...

Posted by: tao9 | December 19, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11706/08-24-ARRA.pdf

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

"It's that you come on an anonymous message board, you're not running for office, you're not a talking head on TV or a right wing author. Yet you insist on coming on here and spouting conservative nonsense despite the fact that pretty much on any given issue, you are at odds with anyone with any expertise on the subject. I mean seriously, that last link you posted was utter nonsense."

So, the only "experts" you recognize happen to support opinions you believe in, and if an "expert" disagreed with your opinion, that person cannot possibly be an expert? Do I have that right, because clarity is important. I happen to think the link was interesting, that's why I posted it. But, if I'm to understand you, since it is at odds with your belief, that FOX viewers are stupid, it is invalid?

"but you and the other Conservatives come on here and keep espousing these points with no evidence other than you heard someone say it on TV. "

I've seen conservatives on this board provide links all the time. Do you not see them? Is there something wrong with your browser? Heck, I provided a link, which you called "utter nonsense" which is, at least for you, at least consistent, however, didn't I just except myself from your stereotype, and thereby invalidate your stereotype?

"Yeah, it might be a liberal view to think the ACA is deficit reducing, the stimulus created jobs, Bush's tax cuts didn't lower deficits, global warming is a real phenomenon, and evolution is real, but I can point to mounds of evidence that supports these views (which is why I harbor them in the first place) You've got nothing to support anything you say."

As I've already demonstrated, anything you find that counters your opinion is invalid and the purveyor not an expert. But it's the conservatives that are epistemologically closed.

"I can point you to the CBO report. And what do you point me to? A testimony that took place a year before the CBO report came out involving a different bill. And you point me to a nonsensical argument about the doc fix."

So, the so called "doc fix" does not raise the cost of Obamacare? Why is pointing out a truth, that the "doc fix" eliminates any projected CBO savings of Obamacare, a nonsensical arguement? As the CBO itself points out, the "doc fix" adds $208 billion to Obamacare, eliminating any purported savings. http://www.house.gov/budget_republicans/press/2007/pr20100319healthdeficits.pdf

"You're lying."

Where did I lie?


Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Troll McWingnut, I think the CBO estimate is as good as we can get comparing the effects of ACA with the effects of not having passed it.

In other words, I can accept that medical and health cost will rise less than it would have had we done nothing.

Like shrink, who has studied this more than most, I believe ACA is only effective around the margins and that far better and even simpler and more cost effective measures were available that also did not include a "public option", which I opposed because our current public options [other than the VA] are driving us into a black hole.

So while I think costs will rise more than they would have under several alternate scenarios I believe CBO when it says they will rise less than under the status quo ante.

I believe this because of the combination of two mechanisms in the law: the individual mandate, creating a larger and younger pool, combined with the 15% OH + profit limitation on the HC insurers.

If the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, the ACA will fail, of course.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 11:14 PM | Report abuse

tao9: the majority of people in the military are men. The great majority of military people ejected under DADT have been men.

As for "POVs I disapprove of," that junk gets old. Find another way to make your point, something a little more compelling than crying "you only like what YOU like!!"

Posted by: caothien9 | December 19, 2010 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Models!

Macroeconometric Forecasting Models
In analyzing ARRA’s economic effects, CBO drew heavily on versions of the commercial forecasting models of two economic consulting firms, Macroeconomic Advisors and Global Insight, and on the FRB-US model used at the Federal Reserve Board.

Real world!

"As of July 24, 2009, minimum wage in the United States was $7.25/hour (before taxes). At the beginning of 2010, minimum wage barely bought you a pre-tax $6.79 ream (500 sheets) of paper at Office Depot. By the end of 2010, that cost had skyrocketed to $9.49 per ream, nearly a 40% increase. But printer paper isn't a necessity for those who need to feed and clothe their families. Official unemployment is at 9.8%, and many "new" jobs are part-time jobs that replaced former full-time jobs. Counting underemployment, the misery soars above 20%."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-tavakoli/in-third-world-america-yo_b_798598.html

Posted by: tao9 | December 19, 2010 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Let me be the first to also say that the "Doc fix" is a given, regardless of the ACA.

Both targets must be moved the same distance, so to speak.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

"I've seen conservatives on this board provide links all the time. Do you not see them? Is there something wrong with your browser? Heck, I provided a link, which you called "utter nonsense" which is, at least for you, at least consistent, however, didn't I just except myself from your stereotype, and thereby invalidate your stereotype?"

This is the only part I'll respond to.

The link you sent was filled with nonsense. Yeah, it says Conservative Things, so you are required to believe it, but it is nonsense. I explained why. It's not a link to expertise. It's a link to a talking head. I know he is saying Conservative Things, but that doesn't make it correct.

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and find the CBO report and make point by point rebuttals about the ACA. Or hell, find me a link by someone else that will do so. (you might want to steer clear of that verumserum site)

But be warned, criticizing the report for not taking into account things that aren't in the law doesn't count as valid.

But anyways, I answered your question on the Conservative Club thing. As I said before, pointing you to evidence on anything won't have an effect on your thinking, so I can't be too bothered to do so.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for that mark_in_austin.

BTW, is the Liberty Lunch still open is Austin? Saw John Lee Hooker there years ago.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"Let me be the first to also say that the "Doc fix" is a given, regardless of the ACA.

Both targets must be moved the same distance, so to speak.

Posted by: mark_in_austin"

Exactly. It's got nothing to do with the ACA. That would be like criticizing the CBO for not accounting for the Afghanistan war in its report.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 19, 2010 11:29 PM | Report abuse

c9,

The intended consequence is that the services are to be strengthened.

That hasn't seemed to be your your main point.

Posted by: tao9 | December 19, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

TMW - Liberty Lunch closed right before W left to campaign for Prez in '99. That part of Austin is now high dollar lakefront condos. Only Saxon Pub, Antones, Stubbs, and Continental Club remain from the old scene. However, there are plenty of new venues and more live music than you can ever see.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2010 11:35 PM | Report abuse

"The link you sent was filled with nonsense. Yeah, it says Conservative Things, so you are required to believe it, but it is nonsense. I explained why. It's not a link to expertise. It's a link to a talking head. I know he is saying Conservative Things, but that doesn't make it correct."

We have a different opinion on the value of the link I provided. You think FOX viewers are stupid. Way to refute it by "... espousing these points with no evidence... ." That's supposed to be bad right?

"f it makes you feel better, go ahead and find the CBO report and make point by point rebuttals about the ACA. Or hell, find me a link by someone else that will do so. (you might want to steer clear of that verumserum site)

But be warned, criticizing the report for not taking into account things that aren't in the law doesn't count as valid."

The point of this was refuting the idea that not believing the CBO estimates on Obamacare made you stupid, because the concurrent media discussion of the cost of the "doc fix", which was left out of Obamacare precisely because it blew-up any possible savings of Obamacare, was being widely reported. I guess it also showed that FOX viewers were less trusting of the "real world" validity of the CBO estimates of the cost of Obamacare. That seems like a smart thing to do, rather than dumb. I know there are examples of things the government has done that cost less than their original estimates, I just can't think of any right now.

"But anyways, I answered your question on the Conservative Club thing. As I said before, pointing you to evidence on anything won't have an effect on your thinking, so I can't be too bothered to do so."

Yes, you answered my question, thank you. I suspect that we have different understandings of what "evidence" is. And please, under no circumstances, should you be bothered to do so. I'd consider it an absolute failing on my part if anything I've written caused you to "bother" to do anything.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 19, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

The intended consequence is that the services are to be strengthened.

That hasn't seemed to be your your main point.

==

I'm not interested in strengthening the service, I regard the military as largely obsolete, vastly oversized in readiness for a style of war that was already on its last legs in the 40s, and loaded with people who shouldn't be there because they aren't smart enough. The Army accepts people who score in the bottom quartile of the entrance exam because it's desperate for recruits and tolerates the presence of religious conservative secret societies.

I'm interested in equal treatment in the military and ending the instituionalization of bigotry.

All indications, hysteria aside, however, are that this repeal will strengthen the armed forces in two respects:

(1) making it more uncomfortable for the sort of bigoted hick who's probably there despite very limited intelligence

(2) ending the expulsion of higher-performing gay soldiers with their elevated abilities in such fields as foreign languages

Posted by: caothien9 | December 19, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

TMW: "I know there are examples of things the government has done that cost less than their original estimates, I just can't think of any right now."

The 2010 census came in under $1.6 billion under budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11census.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 20, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

"The 2010 census came in under $1.6 billion under budget."

There we go. Thank you. I knew there was something ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | December 20, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

"TMW: "I know there are examples of things the government has done that cost less than their original estimates, I just can't think of any right now."

The 2010 census came in under $1.6 billion under budget.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11census.html

Posted by: suekzoo1"

Heh, probably represents a failure of Conservatives as well since if they were successful in getting hordes of people not to mail those things, it would result in census takers having to go to the houses to get the data, driving up costs.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 20, 2010 12:32 AM | Report abuse

And if conservatives don't trust the CBO, I kind of wonder how they even know the government is running a deficit.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 20, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

ddawd,

Yeah, actually that's true. The article says:

"Robert M. Groves, the bureau’s director, also said Tuesday that despite declining response rates to surveys in general, 72 percent of households returned the mailed census questionnaires, about the same proportion as in 2000. The response rate improved in areas that were considered harder to count, like neighborhoods with a disproportionately high share of poor people or immigrants."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | December 20, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

"Differences in attitudes toward gays are EXACTLY explained by familiarity with them."

No, it isn't, and this isn't subject to dispute. For example, I know gays, have friends and associates who are gay, and a gay family member. It doesn't change what I think about homosexuality. It's just that you are ignorant of what most people actually think about it.

"Swallow it and choke, BIGOT"

You (and others) keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"It was when the other 98% of gays started to come out to their families and coworkers that bigotry such as yours became odd, then absurd, and now anathema."

I hate to confront you bigots with reality, but my views are mainstream. In fact, if you think even a majority or plurality of the public is closer to your views than mine, you are laughably ignorant. But that would be unsurprising, given that your commentary reflects essentially zero familiarity with most of American society. And the same goes for your more civilized co-belligerents like lmsinca.

I see even liberals in good standing who toe the pc line in public who privately disapprove of homosexuality and are put off by it. That's more the rule than the exception even for liberals. The fact that you have disowned the U.S. and moved to a workers' paradise probably says something about which of us is more in touch with American values.

"When we see gay soldiers being decorated for valor and courage, for heroic performance, it's going to be harder and harder for these losers like QB and Brigade to trot out their 50s-era stereotypes."

Again, you are quite ignorant of what people like me actually think, and I can assure you that seeing openly homosexual soldiers, sailors, or marines isn't going to provide any new information or change it.

"I'm not interested in strengthening the service, . . ."

Of course he isn't. He hates America. His continuous stream of comments condemning it and lauding the communist dictatorship to which he has decamped make this pretty clear. He would favor whatever weakened th U.S. and its military.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

"I hate to confront you bigots with reality, but my views are mainstream."

==

Demonstrably false. You may have been in the mainstream in the 1950s, and you may be there now in Iran, but here in the USA? You're a dinosaur.

And when you say you have gay friends, I think you're lying. Why would anyone, much less someone you cultivate bigotry toward, regard you as a friend? You're a jerk. Nobody likes a jerk.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

"But anyways, I answered your question on the Conservative Club thing. As I said before, pointing you to evidence on anything won't have an effect on your thinking, so I can't be too bothered to do so."

As this thread again shows, DDAWD is a walking definition of the ignorant and closed-minded ideologue. He's been so long in his cozy thought cocoon that he's literally unable to process or recognize information outside his preconceived notions.

This thread and the previous one again show that, contrary to all his accusations, it is conservatives who engage and address contrary ideas, and liberals who simply shut them out. I suggest you look up some definitions of "bigot" and look in a mirror.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 6:44 AM | Report abuse

This thread and the previous one again show that, contrary to all his accusations, it is conservatives who engage and address contrary ideas

==

If you call rote recitation and repetition and a lot of "LOL" the "engagement of ideas."

And conservatives on here tell a lot of lies and refuse to accept information they don't like. Polls of the American public have shown overwhelming support, to the tune of 80% for repeal of DADT. And you?

"It isn't true! It isn't true! My views are mainstream!"

You're intellectually toothless. Go suck eggs.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

@c9

"All indications, hysteria aside, however, are that this repeal will strengthen the armed forces in two respects."

That clearly remains to be seen, and of your two proffered reasons the second is a peripheral aspect at best; with the first being typically elitist, ungrateful (your "hicks" do nearly all of the fighting and dying), and a lie in the bargain.

You have an agenda that hasn't the slightest interest in improving the services, which is what the Pentagon report maintained would occur and which is what the legislation intends.

Why would anyone regard your opinion as adding to the discourse? You haven't much regard for your country nor, I'd imagine, for most of your countrymen/women. You make that clear in your posts and in your choice of personal geography.

Posted by: tao9 | December 20, 2010 6:47 AM | Report abuse

"Demonstrably false. You may have been in the mainstream in the 1950s, and you may be there now in Iran, but here in the USA? You're a dinosaur."

So demonstrate it. Start with an accurate accounting of my views on the matter (as if).

"And when you say you have gay friends, I think you're lying."

I think you are desperately trying to defend an absurd contention. You (and lmsinca) are asserting that everyone who knows a gay person shares your views, and only people who don't share mine. That's patently preposterous.

In fact, to show just how preposterous it is, I am actually executor and poa under a living will for a gay relative. Now, go ahead and say I'm lying; you are just looking stupider all the time.

"Why would anyone, much less someone you cultivate bigotry toward, regard you as a friend? You're a jerk. Nobody likes a jerk."

I imagine you know something about nobody liking a jerk, but your argument is a bit circular. Surprising that such a superior intelligence as your own doesn't see that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

You're all over the road, tao, pull over and sober up.

(1) Elitist? You better believe it. I want the military to be the best and the brightest, not an employment program for subliterates who can't write their own names and need to be coached to do better than random on the entrance exam. If that's your way to insult me, you missed the barn. Proudly elitist.

(2) The only "agenda" I have is to unpack my shipment and shelve all my books tomorrow. You guys sound so damned stupid tossing that word around.

The repeal will improve the military. A lot of excellent soldiers have been kicked out for being gay, or on rumors thereof, creating a hostile workforce for all. If you care about the military you'd be in support.

(3) Dead on. I have very low regard indeed for most of my countrymen, particularly the ones who re-elected a sadist in 2004 and the ones who make a fetish over guns. I don't like bigots, and I have contempt for right wingers and libertarians.

And if you want to make snide remarks about my choice of country to spend the rest of my life, get a room with quarterback and swap some bodily fluids.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 6:56 AM | Report abuse

Re the "strengthening the forces" discussion...

As I said earlier, other similar examples reveal this to be just one aspect of what is at issue. The most obvious being inclusion of blacks in the service or (at a national level) allowing women the vote or supporting all religious groups rather than placing one in a position of uniqueness of dominance. We now appreciate that forwarding such values and policies and laws "help" through inclusion and through forwarding the principles of justice and equality.

And, as in such earlier cases where it might have been (and often was) argued that the forces or the nation would be damaged in some manner through inclusion of some previously stigmatized group (Catholics, say) those arguments proved fallacious and the bigotry of them came to be acknowledged.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 7:31 AM | Report abuse

And I suppose I ought to, again, ask those opposed to DADT how it might be that while inclusion of gays in the military of nearly every other western nation has produced no discernible negatives for those forces (as the Pentagon study said was the case) then what is it about America or US forces or US culture which would produce some different consequence here? To put that more directly, is America or the American military uniquely homophobic and bigoted?

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse

"The US vice-president, Joe Biden, today likened the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, to a "hi-tech terrorist", the strongest criticism yet from the Obama administration."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/19/assange-high-tech-terrorist-biden

And here is where I put this administration in the "new tyrant only slightly better than the last one" category. This is a repugnant mis-use of language and it's despicable for Biden or anyone else to use it in this instance.

But we knew they'd get there in short order.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

c9,

You're right where you ought to be.

And have no standing whatsoever.

Posted by: tao9 | December 20, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

And if "inhomogeneity" between soldiers is going to be a problem for some of them, do we really want those men in the service?

How are people who're uncomfortable enough arounf *other Americans* to hinder their performance going to fare when deployed abroad among people who are a lot more different? Who speak other languages, who have cultural differences like gestures and expressions that these guys don't understand?

If beating around the weeds with the repeal of DADT exposes these snakes then it;s a good thing.

Unless we're going to war inTennessee and Texas.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

The answers to Bernie's question seem to me to be at least two.

First, I haven't read that study on foreign military forces, but I receive assertions such as this one with a skepticism simply because they are so simplistic and because I doubt the capacity of the Pentagon or anyone else to gather and properly analyze such comprehenisve information other than to arrive at predetermined conclusions.

Second, America is indeed different from just about all other nations. Europe, for example, is far more secularized and has all but entirely rejected its Christian heritage. (And no, that doesn't mean America is "bigoted.") As a side note, isn't it dishonest for liberals who raise this argument to complain that they are falsely accused of wanting to Europeanize America?

Third, there is a circularity to most such assertions in that they assume, rather than demonstrate, that eliminating negative views of homosexuality is a positive good. For example, it is an inherent and explicit goal of this movement to stigmatize and eliminate religious beliefs in conflict with it. That is assumed by proponents to be a good, rather than a negative even if considered merely from the perspective of reducing freedom of thought and conscience. This really is a zero-sum game as it has been arranged by the left.

So I guess that's three rather than two.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Yeah tao whatever you say. I love it here, and moving here was the best decision I ever made. Like so many expatriates, I've eaten of the tree of knowledge and benefited from it. For the cuisine alone the move was worth it.

As for that abridging my "standing," well, you urgently need to get a grip. Is blogging the most important thing in your life? I post here to pass the time and to keep some connection with my native language. For you it's about "standing" and "having and agenda," which suggests to me that you don't have much of a life.

Don't like what I write? Get the script and block me like we all block 37th. Otherwise, take it and stick it.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Congratulations to the Democrat, far-left for the victory on behalf of their favorite group of persecutees, homosexuals.

But, the Obamacrats blew all of their remaining, political capital on the homosexual agenda and hung Hispanics out to flap in the wind, again. Hispanics will think twice before trusting the Democrat homophiles again.

That bodes ill for 2012. I think they put their marbles in the wrong basket and now they are about to lose them, again!

Posted by: battleground51 | December 20, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

QB's "argument":

(1) it's not possible to determine if not stigmatizing gay soldiers has been bad for other countries. What,they're too far away? There are translation problems? This is a very weak excuse.

(2) Some snotty remark about Europe being less religious than the USA. Well, sorry QB but the same is true of younger Americans, thanks in large part to the confrontational ugliness of Protestant fundamentalism and, the envelope please, its bigotry.

(3) Bigots who hate gays arent't really bigots, you know, they're just expressing natural revulsion that we should coddle and shouldn't be so hasty to judge

And I bet you regard yourself as an intellectual. You're painfully subjective, and so steeped in denial that you refuse to accept that your own bigotry is far out in the margins.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

On the contrary, battleground, Latinos know who scuttled the DREAM act and they know who the bigots are. Latino identification with the GOP is at its lowest point in history and still dropping. And if you cretins can't hang onto a socially conservative group like Latinos, who do you have left? Just the crackers and the swing shift.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

For those who celebrate ending of DADT, how about you for once answer in a straightforward way why straigth personnel do not have a legitimate objection based on personal privacy and dignity to living in close quarters and showering with people same sex who are "oriented" toward seeing them as objects of sexual desire?

I know you don't like to have to deal with this simple question and prefer to dismiss it as petty or with a casual "they are bigots" or "they'll have to get used to it." But it's a concrete fact of the matter that you need to address. Nor can you just dismiss it on grounds that "if they aren't interested, they aren't harmed." None of those rationalizations would be accepted for putting men and women in the same proximity, nor should they be. It really doesn't matter that you don't approve the attitude in question. It isn't for you to judge someone who doesn't feel the same comfort you claim you would in that situation. What's your explanation of this, Bernie?

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

QB, you're just pathetic. That's your objection? Soldiers are going to cave under the fear that a gay man might find them attractive? Or are they really more worried that he won't?

Do you have nightmares about finding yourself naked in public?

To coin a phrase, you really need to get out more.

Let me give you a five cent clue: it's the OPPOSITE problem. One of the hardest things about being gay and having straight friends is now exhausting it is when they keep coming on to us. You have any idea how many straight guys are curious about anal sex? ANY idea?

But leave that part aside.

You keep denying your bigotry but then you do a post like that that just shrieks it.

One thing is certain: you don't belong to a gym.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:21 AM | Report abuse

"(1) it's not possible to determine if not stigmatizing gay soldiers has been bad for other countries. What,they're too far away? There are translation problems? This is a very weak excuse."

Your straw-man arguments do get boring.

"(2) Some snotty remark about Europe being less religious than the USA. Well, sorry QB but the same is true of younger Americans, thanks in large part to the confrontational ugliness of Protestant fundamentalism and, the envelope please, its bigotry."

You have a strange definition of "snotty," I guess. I don't think a lot of much social "science," but the relative secularity of Europe as opposed to America is not a matter of dispute. That is a factual and not a judgmental statement. It responds directly to Bernie's question as to how the U.S. is different. Rather strange for you to contest it, given that religion is one of the reasons you hate your former country.

"(3) Bigots who hate gays arent't really bigots, you know, they're just expressing natural revulsion that we should coddle and shouldn't be so hasty to judge"

You do love tautologies. Here is a good one that you should find compelling: "natural revulsion" at homosexuality has been a consistent phenomenon across history and societies. Therefore, it must be normal and deserving of acceptance. Sound familiar?

"And I bet you regard yourself as an intellectual. You're painfully subjective, and so steeped in denial that you refuse to accept that your own bigotry is far out in the margins."

Of course, if you were actually describing yourself, you would never be able to know it. Quite a conundrum for you.

What we know is that you can't demonstrate what you continue to assert is demonstrable.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

@QB - You tried and well done for that. But I truly don't know how I can take this further with you.

"First, I haven't read that study on foreign military forces, but I receive assertions such as this one with a skepticism simply because they are so simplistic and because I doubt the capacity of the Pentagon or anyone else to gather and properly analyze such comprehenisve information other than to arrive at predetermined conclusions."

You have, on the one hand, years of research involving surely hundreds of thousands of man hours by the Pentagon to investigate the effects/consequences of inclusion of gay service members in other nations. On the other hand, you have your own personal suppositions and preferences.

And this truly enormous contrast is met by you with the presumption or charge that the other side must be marked by predetermined conclusions.

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Let me throw it back at you, QB.

If those guys really are straight, why should they give a damn? If they're "uncomfortable" (you don't have a monopoly on the sneer-quote) in the presence of gay men who might see them as "objects of desire" (tip of the hat to Luis Bunuel), why do you think that is? Why purchase does this hook find in their flesh?

Authentically straight men should be too preoccupied with bedding women to have any time left over to worry about another man fancying their privates.

This is, I need to admit, becoming comical.

You're not talking about straight men, you're not even talking about bigots. You're talking about closet cases, men with private homosexual desires you're afraid will spill over into consummation. That in the presence of available and attractive homosexual men, they will yield.

And yes, it does happen, and yes, it will. One hopes they won't screw in the barracks.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

"QB, you're just pathetic. That's your objection? Soldiers are going to cave under the fear that a gay man might find them attractive? Or are they really more worried that he won't?"

Nope. I asked what your answer is to that objection. Because it is a very concrete one, and one which you can't just dismiss as "bigotry," at least not without obvious dishonesty. Everyone who reads this response of yours can see you are again dealing in straw men and evading.

"Do you have nightmares about finding yourself naked in public?"

No, but I can't say I wouldn't find it unpleasant. We can gather from your response that you think this is abnormal and irrational. I think we are starting to get the picture now.

"You have any idea how many straight guys are curious about anal sex? ANY idea?"

First, I have no doubt you are lying about this. Second, if it were true, it wouldn't make gays in the military less of a problem, just a different one.

"You keep denying your bigotry but then you do a post like that that just shrieks it."

Again, you don't seem to know what that word means. If you did, you might notice it describes your behavior.

"One thing is certain: you don't belong to a gym."

Wrong again, although I don't get there often enough. But I don't shower or even change there (not a good idea today simply for public health reasons). And yes, it's obvious who some of the gays are as they ostentiously strut around and linger naked. And yes it's disgusting. But they are, sad to tell you, a small minority.


Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 8:37 AM | Report abuse

You do love tautologies. Here is a good one that you should find compelling: "natural revulsion" at homosexuality has been a consistent phenomenon across history and societies.

==

Actually no, it hasn't.

But I'm sure you'll say that any historian who reports this has a "agenda" and has "predetermined conclusions" and then you'll declare that your views are in the mainstream.

Go find a fossil bed, that's where you belong.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:40 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/the_morning_plum_154.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 20, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

My god. A culture of high paranoia...

"Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army’s report, to Mr. Assange, was its speculation that WikiLeaks is supported by the Central Intelligence Agency. “I only wish they would step forward with a check if that’s the case,” he said."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html

And Greenwald on the WP secrecy reporting this morning...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/20/surveillance/index.html

Posted by: bernielatham | December 20, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

cao,

So all you've got is the last refuge of "anyone who has a problem must be in the closet"? Pathetic. Really.

Partly it's just self-flattery on your part. What's remarkable is your typical conceit that you understand and can psychoanalyze heterosexuals whom you claim can't possibly comprehend your own psyche.

Suffice it to say that you probably wouldn't be foolish enough to use the same argument about men and women in close quarters. I suspect you would see the merit of women's objection to being exposed in that way, regardless of whether they feel they might "give in to temptation." It's a simple matter of privacy and dignity. Irrational to you but quite normal and legitimate.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

You go to a gym, but you don't shower or change there.

Wow.

I think I have a pretty good idea where you're coming from on DADT.

And if you think gay men at the gym are a small minority .. jesus .. "ostentatiously strut around" .. oh no, no bigotry there.

You're not going to like the 21st century very much

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:46 AM | Report abuse

All, Morning Roundup posted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121904032.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | December 20, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

"You go to a gym, but you don't shower or change there.

Wow.'

Happens not to be necessary. I suppose you also aren't aware of the public health issues surrounding most public locker rooms and showers -- lots of nasty contagions around. As a renowned microbiologist, I'm surprised you don't know that.

"I think I have a pretty good idea where you're coming from on DADT."

I doubt it.

"And if you think gay men at the gym are a small minority .. jesus .. "ostentatiously strut around" .. oh no, no bigotry there."

Yes, it's quite obvious they are a small minority at mine. And, yes, some of them do ostentatiouly strut around in hopes of being looked at. Odd you would be surprised at this, given your disapproval of the gay exhibitionist crowd.

"You're not going to like the 21st century very much"

You left the country. That's one part I like.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

No, QB, it's nothing to do with privacy and dignity.

A guy who's afraid to expose himself in front of strangers in a setting where this is the norm and tries to pass it as "privacy and dignity" isn't fooling anyone. You have some serious personal issues around nudity, too painful for whatever reason to examine objectively, and you're projecting them onto the US military wrapped up in a nice biright homophobia-colored package.

Maybe you're fat, maybe you have diminutive genitalia, maybe you're just a prude, but none of this has anything to do with the repeal of DADT.

The US military will be just fine.

Posted by: caothien9 | December 20, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Lol, keep bailing.

No, not fat or any other cause for "embarassment." Quite athletic actually. I showered with teammates for years when young. I was a gym rat. I just don't choose to use the gym I belong to that way now.

We can all see at this point who's got some psychological disturbances and twisted perceptions. Clue: it isn't the person who would avoid public nudity.

When all else fails, when your arguments fall apart, your side always tries this silly "you must be in the closet" garbage. Like you would have any clue. I doubt that even you take that nonsense seriously. At best, you have no idea how pathetically ignorant you are.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Btw, I should have pointed out, not many people have a "problem" with nudity "in a setting where that is the norm" as opposed to "in public." Of course, you are just begging the question, because "the norm" is usually hetorosexuals of same sex in a particular setting. You really can't get around that.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

A last thought on this before off to work. By the reasoning of cao and co., all those homosexuals who claim to be put off by heterosexuality must be closet heteros.

What a chaotically incoherent set of beliefs.

Posted by: quarterback1 | December 20, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

quarterback1, I applaud your comments. It's wonderful that you haven't resorted to immature insults the way, caothien9 always seems to do when one of us on the conservative side post a good rebuttal or question he finds uncomfortable. That being said, caothien9 still has not answered the last question I posted; how can humans find purpose and meaning in an universe with no purpose and meaning? I noticed the pattern the liberals seem to be following here, we conservies ask a tough question or issue a rebuttal against their arguments and break things down using their logic and they proceed to insult us or excuse us of bigotry. It's insane.

Posted by: 6pack | December 20, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company