# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  THIS is what's wrong with Republicans:

## Tock

They speak against earmarks, then they sponsor 'em. What's up with that?
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.
===========================

http://sessions.house.gov/index.cfm?...9-d7ff841f5322
*Appropriations*

Earmarks have become a symbol of broken Washington to the American people. In these tough economic times, American families and small businesses are tightening their fiscal belts, and they have every right to expect Washington to do the same. Unfortunately, this Congress has already proven its addiction to record-breaking, pork-barrel spending.  
Consequently, Congressman Sessions is supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. While some earmarks serve valuable purposes, such as infrastructure and research projects, wasteful earmarks have unfortunately polluted the earmark process. The need for comprehensive earmark reform is clear. 
(there's more)
--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/25599
Exclusive: Earmark critic steered cash to blimp research

Rep. Pete Sessions  the chief of the Republicans campaign arm in the House  says on his website that earmarks have become a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people. 
Yet in 2008, Sessions himself steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. 
What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf. 
Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis defends the airship project as a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessionss Dallas-area district. 
But the company that received the earmarked funds, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in the suburbs of Chicago, with another office in San Antonio  nearly 300 miles from Dallas. And while Sessions used a Dallas address for the company when he submitted his earmark request to the House Appropriations Committee last year, one of the two men who control the company says that address is merely the home of one of his close friends. 
Jim G. Ferguson IV  the younger half of the father-son team behind Jim G. Ferguson & Associates  told POLITICO that he and his father are trying to build an airship with a high fineness ratio that can be used in both military and civilian applications. 
Fineness ratio is the technical term for the relationship between an airships length and its diameter; the higher the fineness ratio, the longer and more slender the airship is. A blimp with a very high fineness ratio could fly faster and be able to stay aloft longer  the holy grail for airship designers during the past century. 
Yet Ferguson acknowledged that neither he nor his father has a background in the defense or aviation industries, nor any engineering or research expertise. 
A search of publicly available records shows no history of the Fergusons ever being involved with the airship industry other than their attendance at a February 2005 Pentagon conference on the subject. 
Jim G. Ferguson IV said in an interview that he and his father were business people and had acquired the patents for building an advanced airship prototype. He said that the two men are playing a supervisory role in the project and have obtained world-class experts to work for us. 
According to a statement that Sessions included in the Congressional Record last September, slightly more than half of the $1.6 million earmark was to go toward research and engineering costs. The remainder was for overhead and administrative costs. 
(there's more . . . )

----------


## Tock

Adrian Plesha

Quite the accomplished criminal, and Congressman Session's aide and Republican fraudster:


http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040422murs.html
FRAUDULENT SCHEME TO DECEIVE VOTERS RESULTS 
IN $84,000 IN CIVIL PENALTIESWASHINGTON -- The FEC has entered into conciliation agreements with Adrian Plesha and Charles Ball for Congress resulting from their fraudulent misrepresentation of their opponent’s party and a Congressman from a neighboring district in mailings and phone calls during the 1998 campaign. The Commission found probable cause to believe that Plesha and the committee had knowingly and willfully violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). Adrian Plesha will pay a $60,000 civil penalty and Charles Ball for Congress will pay $24,000. Shortly before the 1998 general election, Ball for Congress, acting through its campaign manager Adrian Plesha, covertly arranged and financed the dissemination of approximately 40,000 letters and 10,000 phone calls that urged registered Democrats not to vote for Representative Ellen Tauscher. The letters and phone calls came from the "East Bay Democratic Committee," a fictitious organization created by Adrian Plesha and Ball for Congress. The letters contained a false address and falsely used neighboring Democratic Congressman George Miller's name as the signatory. Plesha knowingly made false statements to the FEC, denying involvement in or knowledge of this scheme when in fact he had created, authorized and distributed the fabricated letters and calls. To avoid being identified as the true sponsor of the communications, Ball for Congress and Adrian Plesha omitted the required disclaimers, created phony invoices, used stamps rather than the committee’s postal meter and asked vendors to hide any links between the communications and Ball for Congress.
The Act prohibits Federal candidates or their agents from fraudulently misrepresenting any committee under their control as speaking or writing on behalf of any other candidate or political party on a matter that is damaging to that other candidate or party. Additionally, the law requires any person who expressly advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate through a mass mailing to include a disclaimer stating who paid for and authorized the mailing.
The FEC also referred Mr. Plesha to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Mr. Plesha pled guilty to making false statements to the FEC and was sentenced to three years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 160 hours of community service.


=======================

http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/33388/print
Published on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org) 
*CREW FILES DOJ COMPLAINT AGAINST TEXAS REP. PETE SESSIONS* 



19 Apr 2006 // Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Department of Justice (DOJ) complaint against Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) for official actions he may have taken on behalf of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, as well as possible bribes he may have accepted from a San Francisco defense technology company. The complaint asks for the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into Rep. Sessions.
CREW’s complaint alleges that Rep. Sessions co-signed two letters, one to former Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2001 and another to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2002, which benefitted Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta. One month after his 2002 letter was sent, Rep. Sessions’ political action committee, PETE PAC, received $3,500 from the Louisiana Coushatta and another $3,500 from other tribes with casinos. Within 18 months, PETE PAC received $20,500 from tribes associated with Abramoff.
Rep. Sessions also traveled to Malaysia on an Abramoff-arranged trip with indicted public relations executive Michael Scanlon, two lobbyists from Abramoff’s firm Greenberg Traurig, one of which, Tony Rudy has been indicted, and two other Members of Congress, Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY). Prior to the trip, Rep. Sessions had shown no public interest in Malaysia, but four months after the trip, Rep. Sessions became an advocate for Malaysia by forming the Malaysia Trade, Security and Economic Cooperation in the House with trip-mate Rep. Meeks.
Additionally, Rep. Sessions promoted the interests of Promia, a firm based in San Francisco that hired Session’s former communications director, *Adrian Plesha*, as vice president and director of its Washington office. Mr. Plesha pleaded guilty to felony charges related to FEC offences shortly after he began working for Promia.
Promia was able to garner a nearly $800,000 Navy research and development contract in May, 2000 and Rep. Sessions, along with Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), publicly worked to get an additional $8 million for Promia through a Department of Defense grant.
In October 2000, the same month that Promia received $2 million from Trautman Wasserman & Co., a New York venture capital firm, Rep. Sessions received the maximum allowed — $1,000 each, from eight Promia executives for his re-election campaign. In 2002, Promia gave $30,000 to PETE PAC. In total Promia and its executives have contributed nearly $55,000 to Rep. Sessions since 2000 – by far the largest contribution Promia has made to any Member of Congress.

==========

----------


## Tock

http://www.burntorangereport.com/dia...riminal-record

*TX-32: Pete Sessions' $1.6M Taxpayer Gift to Former Aide with Criminal Record* 


*by: Matt Glazer* 

*Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 04:07 PM CDT* 


Pete Session has some serious explaining to do. 
According to a Politico and Washington Monthly article, Session earmarked $1.6 million to a company he may or may not have questionable ties to. 
[Sessions] steered a $1.6 million earmark for dirigible research to an Illinois company whose president acknowledges having no experience in government contracting, let alone in building blimps. What the company did have: the help of Adrian Plesha, a former Sessions aide with a criminal record who has made more than $446,000 lobbying on its behalf.Sessions has referred to earmarks in the past with unquestioning and unequivocal opposition. Saying earmarks are "a symbol of a broken Washington to the American people." 
Of course, Pete Sessions staff member and spokeswoman Emily Davis defended the project before looking at a map. According to Politico, Davis said the airship project is a worthwhile use of federal funds and says it could eventually lead to thousands of new jobs in Sessions's Dallas-area district. 
As mentioned above, the company is based in Illinois with a branch office in San Antonio. 
Washington Monthly sums up the bizarre situation: 
While lawmakers routinely support earmarks for their home district and/or state, this particular measure has nothing to do with Sessions' Dallas-area district. *The company, Jim G. Ferguson & Associates, is based in a Chicago suburb.* It has an office in Texas, but it's 300 miles from Sessions' district. 
What's more, when Sessions submitted the earmark, he used a Dallas address for the company, but it was actually the address of a friend of one of the company's executives. *It looks a little suspicious.* The leaders of Jim G. Ferguson & Associates admit they have *no background in aviation or defense*, and *no expertise in engineering or research.* It's why it seems odd that Sessions would direct $1.6 million to the company, most of which would go towards research and engineering on a dirigible project.We use words like hypocrisy on this site a lot to sum up the Republican Party in Texas, but this extends well beyond a complex idea like hypocrisy. This seems, at the very worst, corrupt and at the very best, unethical. Sessions is the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman (NRCC). He is in charge of both representing and electing Republicans to Congress.

----------


## thegodfather

*[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution, President Obama said in a statement released today.* 

The Democrats are much better. Just today the Democratic Congress launched in inquiry into the many abuses that happened under the Republican Bush regime, and Obama supported this move, he wants to bring the war criminals to justice. Actually, I just made all that up, the reality is that the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi(who wouldn't allow an impeachment to proceed on George Bush), and Barack Obama have no interest in upholding the rule of law in the United States and putting people on trial for egregious crimes which hurt thousands of people and severely damaged the integrity of the United States. Obama seems to be of the opinion that these people who committed these acts were "only following orders," well we didn't let the criminals at Nuremburg off that easily, but I suppose its 'different' when we're talking about Americans. It's always different for us. Do as we say and not as we do. Obama and the majority of the Democrats are empty suits, a whole lot of talk, and not a lot of action. So much for your change.

----------


## amcon

didnt read much here... seems pretty straight forward... dems are leading this

----------


## SMCengineer

So, by analyizing the actions of one individual you come up with a conclusion based on an entire party? Further, how innocent do you think many democrats are when it comes to hypocrisy?

----------


## Tock

Hypocrisy. Huh.

It's been the Republicans who have bleated bleated bleated that they are the party of fiscal responsibility, while Democrats were the party of tax and spend

You have undoubtedly noticed that the Party of George Bush had so mismanaged the economy over his 8 years in office that the US had descended into massive deficit spending, that borrowing from China was at a record high, that the national debt was at a stupefying record high, and trillion-dollar bailouts of underregulated banking and insurance companies were necessary to prevent the planet from schlepping into a massive world-wide depression! 

Yep, the country was a whole lot better off under the policies of the Clinton administration, than under the neo-conservative war-mongering anti-civil rights policies of the Bushies.

But, the Republicans still whine about "those tax and spend liberals." They had their opportunity to prove their mettle, and they drove the US into the biggest recession since World War 2.

----

Hypocrisy. Huh.

For years and years the Republicans beat Democrats senseless with Bibles and their claims that they were the "party of family values." 

Well, the Republican Senator from Idaho was caught playing "footsie" with a cop in an airport restroom. The Republican Senator from Louisiana was caught patronizing hookers in Washington DC. The anti-gay Republican leader of Fundamentalist Evangelicals in the US was caught paying a male hooker for sex--and drugs!
Ordinarily, that wouldn't merit a second look from my prying eyes, except that all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.


Sure, some Democrats do the same thing, and some Republicans are honest. I grumble about them when their hypocrisy is uncovered. 

But no, I did not "come up with a conclusion" . . . "by analyzing the actions of one individual." I've been watching both Republicans and Democrats for years and years. Lots of 'em are crooks, but there are lots more hypocrites in the Republican party.




--





> So, by analyizing the actions of one individual you come up with a conclusion based on an entire party? Further, how innocent do you think many democrats are when it comes to *hypocrisy*?

----------


## Tock

> all three of those Republicans (and there are plenty plenty plenty more, I assure you) claimed to be morally superior than heathen Democrats, and all three profited by deceiving the general public. That, in my book, makes them hypocrites.


Speak of the Devil; I signed off of here and went to check National News, and here's another story of Republican Hypocrisy. Not that I'm surprised; there's been so many of them over the past 10 or 20 years. And there will probably be more tomorrow.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/...enator_scandal
*Tenn. senator has affair with intern, resigns*

*NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Tennessee state senator said he was opposed to sex outside marriage, but his private life told a different story: He was having an affair with his 22-year-old intern.*
When an extortion plot exposed married Republican Sen. Paul Stanley's illicit relationship, he said he would be "clearing up" misimpressions later. He's now clearing out his office, the latest politician caught in a sex scandal, this one made worse by not coming clean.

"If you can't explain what you've done to your constituents in 30 seconds or less in a way they would accept, then don't do it," said Bruce Oppenheimer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University. "It's amazing how many elected officials violate that very important conventional wisdom."

As news of the affair broke last month, the 47-year-old Stanley dodged reporters and issued a statement calling himself a victim. The suburban Memphis lawmaker, a married father of two who taught Sunday school, said he wanted to set the record straight. But, he insisted, prosecutors had told him not to talk.

The details that emerged, however, did nothing to vindicate him. Court documents showed he had admitted the affair to investigators and acknowledged taking explicit photos of intern McKensie Morrison in his Nashville apartment. Prosecutors issued a statement saying he was not restricted from discussing the case. After a week of mounting pressure, he reluctantly resigned.

Even as he quit, he tried to blame Morrison, suggesting in a radio interview that the intern might face charges in the extortion case.

Her boyfriend, Joel Watts, is the only person charged in the matter, accused of trying to extort $10,000 from Stanley in April. Authorities have said they do not plan to file more charges.

Investigators say Watts demanded the money in exchange for not selling Stanley's explicit photos of Morrison to the media. Morrison and Watts have said Stanley was the first to offer to pay.

Stanley kept constituents and colleagues — even the Republican speaker of the Senate — in the dark until the first court hearing in the case on July 20.

Tennessee Democratic operative Mark Brown, who blasted Republicans' handling of the incident on his blog, said Stanley's biggest mistake was appearing dishonest.

"First and foremost, tell the truth," he said. "Crisis management does not mean that you alter facts. Tell the truth, and then shut up."

Moments after submitting his resignation letter, Stanley went on a talk radio show in Memphis to say that his actions did not shake his moral ideals.

In nearly a decade in the Legislature, *he repeatedly cited his belief in abstinence outside marriage as he opposed gay marriage, adoption by gay couples and family planning funding for Planned Parenthood.*
"Whatever I stood for and advocated, I still believe to be true," he said last week. "And just because I fell far short of what God's standard was for me and my wife it doesn't mean that that standard is reduced in the least bit."

Voters were outraged, posting hundreds of comments on newspaper Web sites and writing letters to the editor.
"He wants others to stay out of his business while he jumps blindly into theirs," Dot Truitt Walk of Memphis said in a letter to The Commercial Appeal. "All of those sanctimonious hypocrites should remember this."
Though Stanley's resignation is unhelpful to the GOP, it is not expected to affect his district's solid Republican voting pattern. The GOP already controls the state Senate, though the governor is a Democrat. A special election will be held to fill Stanley's seat.

Oppenheimer said the timing of the scandal may actually be better for Tennessee Republicans than if the affair had surfaced closer to the election. 

"The Republicans are far better off that this happened in July 2009 than if it were July 2010," he said. 
Some Tennessee Republicans even made light of the situation. State Rep. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville wrote on his blog that another lawmaker told him the Stanley affair was "just more proof, Republicans are clearly irresistible to females." 

Other Republicans across the country have recently been caught in extramarital affairs, among them U.S. Sens. John Ensign of Nevada and David Vitter of Louisiana. Then there's South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who on his return from a secret visit to his mistress in Argentina confessed his affair at a tearful, rambling press conference. 

But Tom Ingram, a longtime Republican consultant in Tennessee, said all public officials risk the same scorn if they advocate one set of standards while acting under others. "Every public official espouses morality, just like every preacher does," Ingram said. "And the higher standards you set for yourself and others, if you violate those along the way, you're going to pay a higher price because you got caught in your own web."

----------


## MuscleScience

bla bla bla, damn republicans damn democrats. No no no, Damn all the self serving politicians. Its sheepish to blame one party or the other as being dirty or hypocritical. Good god people wake the **** up!!!

----------


## Tock

> bla bla bla, damn republicans damn democrats. No no no, Damn all the self serving politicians. Its sheepish to blame one party or the other as being dirty or hypocritical. Good god people wake the **** up!!!


True.

But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.

----------


## Iron_Pig

WTF show me an asshat politician that is worth a bag of shit. They ride a moral high horse and then get caught doing shit they should not be doing.

----------


## Iron_Pig

> True.
> 
> But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.


Because they are kissing that illegal immigrant ass for votes and spending my kids future away.

----------


## Tock

> Because they are kissing that illegal immigrant ass for votes and spending my kids future away.


 Nevertheless, it is true that Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republicans granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens back in the 1980's, and the gov't was supposed to stop the inflow after that, but it didn't. Reagan Republicans let them continue to sneak across and stay up until 1992, and the Clinton Democrats did the same thing. In 2000, the Bush Republicans kept letting them come across, and made a few token efforts to send a few back, and now the gov't is broke, and can't afford to pay for holding centers and border guards. So things won't change much.
Point is, both the Republicans AND the Democrats suck on this issue. 

And as far as spending your kid's future away, that's primarily the unhappy effect of computers and international communications. 
Almost everyone in the US is going to have to compete with lower-priced foreigners for US labor. If I want to sell packages of XYZ goo in my shop, if it's cheaper to have it made in China or Andorra or Malaysia, that's what I'm gonna do because MY competitor across the street is gonna do the same thing, and customers aren't gonna buy XYZ goo from me for $8 if they can walk across the street and buy it for $4. 
Semiconductor manufacturers and software people are gonna do the same thing. Nobody in the USA is going to pay $2000 for an American-made 36" LCD if they can get a Sony for $899. 
So jobs are going overseas, buds. And jobs will keep going over there until they (and their companies) make as much per hour as Americans do. That might mean that their wages will go up, or that ours will go down, or more probably a combination of both. 

So prepare for a US decline in living standards. As long as there are lots of computers and international communications, that's the way it's gonna be. Not the responsibility of either political party, just the way a free an open economic system works.

----------


## Tigershark

There was way too much there to read. Where the Republicans go wrong is by not carrying through on thier promises. Bush ruined the Republican party and the Dems are not doing much better. Obama was elected because he lactates hope from his nipples and this is what Americans needed to hear at the time.

----------


## Iron_Pig

> Nevertheless, it is true that Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republicans granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens back in the 1980's, and the gov't was supposed to stop the inflow after that, but it didn't. Reagan Republicans let them continue to sneak across and stay up until 1992, and the Clinton Democrats did the same thing. In 2000, the Bush Republicans kept letting them come across, and made a few token efforts to send a few back, and now the gov't is broke, and can't afford to pay for holding centers and border guards. So things won't change much.
> Point is, both the Republicans AND the Democrats suck on this issue. 
> 
> And as far as spending your kid's future away, that's primarily the unhappy effect of computers and international communications. 
> Almost everyone in the US is going to have to compete with lower-priced foreigners for US labor. If I want to sell packages of XYZ goo in my shop, if it's cheaper to have it made in China or Andorra or Malaysia, that's what I'm gonna do because MY competitor across the street is gonna do the same thing, and customers aren't gonna buy XYZ goo from me for $8 if they can walk across the street and buy it for $4. 
> Semiconductor manufacturers and software people are gonna do the same thing. Nobody in the USA is going to pay $2000 for an American-made 36" LCD if they can get a Sony for $899. 
> So jobs are going overseas, buds. And jobs will keep going over there until they (and their companies) make as much per hour as Americans do. That might mean that their wages will go up, or that ours will go down, or more probably a combination of both. 
> 
> So prepare for a US decline in living standards. As long as there are lots of computers and international communications, that's the way it's gonna be. Not the responsibility of either political party, just the way a free an open economic system works.


You hit the nail on the head on that Bro

----------


## SMCengineer

> Hypocrisy. Huh.
> 
> It's been the Republicans who have bleated bleated bleated that they are the party of fiscal responsibility, while Democrats were the party of tax and spend
> 
> You have undoubtedly noticed that the Party of George Bush had so mismanaged the economy over his 8 years in office that the US had descended into massive deficit spending, that borrowing from China was at a record high, that the national debt was at a stupefying record high, and trillion-dollar bailouts of underregulated banking and insurance companies were necessary to prevent the planet from schlepping into a massive world-wide depression! 
> 
> Yep, the country was a whole lot better off under the policies of the Clinton administration, than under the neo-conservative war-mongering anti-civil rights policies of the Bushies.
> 
> But, the Republicans still whine about "those tax and spend liberals." They had their opportunity to prove their mettle, and they drove the US into the biggest recession since World War 2.
> ...


You don't have to prove to me that many Republicans are hypocrites, I'll willingly and knowingly conceed that point. But to say that "This is what's wrong with Republicans" is simply wrong and ignoring the bigger picture that it's not a party issue. Nor is it appropriate to say "the republicans have more hypocrites," as though being a little less hypocritical makes one party morally better off than the other. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and, frankly, politicians specialize in it, don't focus on one party in particular as though it's a polarizing issue. Stop with the 'one side is better than the other' bs. They're both shit.

----------


## Tock

> Stop with the 'one side is better than the other' bs. They're both shit.


 One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable). 

These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing. 

Democrats don't do that to me. 
Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert? 

FTS . . .  :2nono:  

As my little brother says, "Both Republicans and Democrats are crooks, but at least the Democrats will leave a little bit on your plate after they rob ya blind."

 :1hifu: to Republican politicians

----------


## Iron_Pig

To all politicians  :Liar:  they serve their own agenda not the people's. They will sell you a bill of good's and never deliver because they act like little kid's on the play ground.

----------


## SMCengineer

> One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable). 
> 
> These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing. 
> 
> Democrats don't do that to me. 
> Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
> From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
> And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert?


'Don't ask don't tell' was enacted by Clinton.

----------


## Kratos

> *“[I]t is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution,” President Obama said in a statement released today.* 
> 
> The Democrats are much better. Just today the Democratic Congress launched in inquiry into the many abuses that happened under the Republican Bush regime, and Obama supported this move, he wants to bring the war criminals to justice. Actually, I just made all that up, the reality is that the Democrats, Nancy Pelosi(who wouldn't allow an impeachment to proceed on George Bush), and Barack Obama have no interest in upholding the rule of law in the United States and putting people on trial for egregious crimes which hurt thousands of people and severely damaged the integrity of the United States. Obama seems to be of the opinion that these people who committed these acts were "only following orders," well we didn't let the criminals at Nuremburg off that easily, but I suppose its 'different' when we're talking about Americans. It's always different for us. Do as we say and not as we do. Obama and the majority of the Democrats are empty suits, a whole lot of talk, and not a lot of action. So much for your change.



This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.

These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.

----------


## Kratos

Holy cow Tock, what a stupid thread. I thought you were above this.

----------


## Iron_Pig

> This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.
> 
> These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.


We are not brainwashed and we do question  :Frown:  This is what separates us from other military's I was an Officer in the Army and I questioned everything we did these are my Boy's my Family and I will be Damned to hell if I sent they on some fubar mission.

----------


## gigabitbucket

> There was way too much there to read. Where the Republicans go wrong is by not carrying through on thier promises. Bush ruined the Republican party and the Dems are not doing much better. Obama was elected because he lactates hope from his nipples and this is what Americans needed to hear at the time.


So true!

----------


## ScotchGuard

DEMs better than REPs? How about Ford better than Chevy? It doesn't matter who's in office. DEMs spent $1 TRILLION DOLLARS! to bailout banks. That's $4,000 that every man woman and child has to pay back. Where does that money come from? We borrow it. China is the BIGGEST financier of our debt. So by Obama borrowing and spending $1 T to bail out banks that was doing just what the Clinton administration told them to do. A $1 T debt quiets all the REPs bleating. How are we EVER going to pay that back? We've sold the future of our children and grand children.

----------


## TITANIUM

> This is one area where I disagree with you Godfather. We shouldn't punish our soldiers for following orders. Rather the orgin of the order. We expect our soldiers to follow orders and not question leadership. We brainwash them to do so. It's unfair to fvck them if they do, fvck them if they don't.
> 
> These are our soldiers, the Nuremburg criminals were not. We need to allow them to follow orders and not question leadership. I think we need to respect them for the job they do, rather then keep them in fear of being held accountable. That should fall on the head of the source of the order.





I respect the Godfather as well as Kratos. You have my respect.The difference between the two parties is a very fine line in the sand. At this point, they are all dirty, and everyone knows it.So stop trying to point fingers at each other.If you want to blame a particular party, you need not to look any farther than your bathroom mirror. We the people, let this diluted goverment get out of control.

Remember, we the people should not fear the goverment, the goverment should fear the people!!!

----------


## Iron_Pig

> I respect the Godfather as well as Kratos. You have my respect.The difference between the two parties is a very fine line in the sand. At this point, they are all dirty, and everyone knows it.So stop trying to point fingers at each other.If you want to blame a particular party, you need not to look any farther than your bathroom mirror. We the people, let this diluted goverment get out of control.
> 
> Remember, we the people should not fear the goverment, the goverment should fear the people!!!


  :BbAily:

----------


## binder

haha, republicans? try all politicians. hell, look at the current administration. Do you think the first lady needs all this staff?

Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry?
July 7, 2009
Dr. Paul L. Williams
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, " Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn't perform any official duties. But this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession. Just think Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary.
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Miz Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by John Q. Public:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
There has never been anyone in the White House at any time that has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travelled aboard Air Force One to Europe.
Wonder how much they cost?

----------


## Iron_Pig

Where is her personnel ass wiper ?? I'm glad to know my tax dollars are not being wasted on  :Bs:

----------


## TITANIUM

> Where is her personnel ass wiper ?? I'm glad to know my tax dollars are not being wasted on


I'm sure it's just been omitted accidentally.They have maybe moved up to an auto ass wiper? But then again, it would cost less money, so there is probably a personal ass wiper!!LOL

----------


## BgMc31

That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..

No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.

I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.

----------


## Iron_Pig

> I'm sure it's just been omitted accidentally.They have maybe moved up to an auto ass wiper? But then again, it would cost less money, so there is probably a personal ass wiper!!LOL


 
I smell Revaluation  : 1106:

----------


## Iron_Pig

> That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..
> 
> No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.
> 
> I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.


They are all dirty every DAMN one of them They all need to be lined up and shot.

----------


## spywizard

would you rather be a bigot?? or a hypocrite??

----------


## Mooseman33

> *That stuff about Michelle Obama can be said about Laura Bush and every other 1st lady...even the Republican beloved Nancy Reagan. That's just a perk of being the 1st lady*, and every other governor's wife, mayor's wife, etc., etc..
> 
> No one is disputing that waste and moral issues of most politicians. The point was Republican's tend to always campaign on morals, fiscal responsibility, and things of the like but tend to break those 'virtues' in their private lives, that's where the hypocrisy lies.
> 
> I know a lot of your republicans are trying to distance yourself from the new neo-con republican party, but let's face it, that is the face of your party. Don't try to deflect that when it's plain as the nose on your faces.


not true, read the bottom of the OP post where it list the amount of staffers the other first ladies had....nothing even close to michele obama...

----------


## Tock

> 'Don't ask don't tell' was enacted by Clinton.


Clinton originally wanted to integrate the armed forces, but DADT was the best compromise he could get. It wasn't much of an improvement, but it was some.
It used to be if the military suspected you were gay, they'd start an investigation. They'd watch you, read your mail, ask a lot of people a lot of prying questions. Their investigations were basically witch-hunts. One person would name another, and they'd grill that person and then he'd name a few more, and they wouldn't quit until they decided they couldn't lose any more people, or until they started getting into generals & other high-level people.

Almost every other NATO military is integrated, there's no reason why the US can't be as well.

----------


## lostcause

> Clinton originally wanted to integrate the armed forces, but DADT was the best compromise he could get. It wasn't much of an improvement, but it was some.
> It used to be if the military suspected you were gay, they'd start an investigation. They'd watch you, read your mail, ask a lot of people a lot of prying questions. Their investigations were basically witch-hunts. One person would name another, and they'd grill that person and then he'd name a few more, and they wouldn't quit until they decided they couldn't lose any more people, or until they started getting into generals & other high-level people.
> 
> Almost every other NATO military is integrated, there's no reason why the US can't be as well.


i dont see where they help the military, everyone knows gays cant fight.

----------


## Tock

> i dont see where they help the military, everyone knows gays cant fight.


Ya, it wouldn't be any good to have a military full of people like this guy:


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/16/us...jects/A/Armies

*MILITARY DEMOTES A GAY SERGEANT*

*Published: Sunday, May 16, 1993*


A highly decorated sergeant who publicly acknowledged his homosexuality was demoted to specialist four just three days after local military officials gave preliminary approval for his honorable discharge.

Army officials said the sergeant, *Jose Zuniga, who was the Sixth Army's 1992 Soldier of the Year*, was demoted on Thursday because he wore a medal he had not yet been awarded. The decision, by Lieut. Col. Wayne C. Agness, a battalion commander, came after a two-hour hearing at the Presidio, where Sergeant Zuniga is stationed.

Sergeant Zuniga, 24, wore a Meritorious Service medal at the Washington reception where he declared his homosexuality nearly three weeks ago, said a Presidio spokesman, Lieut. Col. Steven Fredericks.

The reception was held the day before the gay march and rally at the Capitol. One of the main issues publicized by the march was the military's ban on homosexuals.

'We Have Integrity'

Officials at the Presidio noticed the medal on Sergeant Zuniga's uniform when they saw televised reports of his announcement, Colonel Fredericks said. He said that Sergeant Zuniga had been recommended to receive the commendation but that the award had not been formally approved.

"The one thing we have in the Army is integrity," Colonel Fredericks said. "What we wear on our uniform is very important because it tells us who we are and where we've been. When you misrepresent yourself, we take that very seriously."

Sergeant Zuniga said Thursday he was sure the award had been approved. He said he called the military personnel office at the Presidio, where somebody told him the commendation had been posted in his record. So he bought himself a ribbon and pinned it on with his others.

Now, he said, people working in the personnel office are signing statements saying that conversation never occurred.

Colonel Fredericks said the medal had not been posted in Sergeant Zuniga's record. 

'Doesn't Make Sense'

Sergeant Zuniga said: "I came out because I didn't want to live a lie. It doesn't make sense for me to lie about something as basic as one ribbon. I have five Army Commendation Medals. Why would I add one more and put myself through this horror?

"I was devastated when I heard the punishment. The most important thing to take from a soldier is his rank. I love the Army."

The sergeant said he hoped that the demotion was not the result of "the reason that is resonating my mind: that the Army would like to see me leave with a bloody nose."

While Sergeant Zuniga's honorable discharge has been approved by military officers at the Presidio, it will not be official until it passes through all levels of the military. Until then, the Army can take any action it deems appropriate against him.

Sergeant Zuniga's lawyer, James Kennedy, said the incident "was at worst a naive mistake." He said Sergeant Zuniga did not deserve anything more than an oral reprimand.

Colonel Fredericks said the action had nothing to do with Sergeant Zuniga's homosexuality. "It was dealt with in an appropriate manner," Colonel Fredericks said. "It would have happened if he was gay or not. Anybody who links those two together does not understand anything about the military."

Photo: Sgt. Jose Zuniga (Jose R. Lopez/The New York Times)

----------


## Tock

> i dont see where they help the military, everyone knows gays cant fight.


And of course, this makes perfectly good policy:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt...fall_continues
*Military Fires Three More Gay Arabic Linguists as Shortfall Continues*


Iraq Combat Units Losing Their Translators from Frontlines *Date:* May 23, 2007

SANTA BARBARA, CA, May 23 2007 - 
The Associated Press disclosed today that more Arabic linguists have been fired by the military under the dont ask, dont tell policy that requires separation when a commander learns a service member is gay or lesbian. The linguists were investigated after military officials listened in on conversations conducted on a high-level government computer system which allows intelligence personnel to communicate with troops on the frontlines. 
One linguist was serving in Iraq with a Marine combat unit when he was discharged. A military source reported that he was known to be gay but was allowed to serve and was only formally investigated after an Inspector General audit obtained language from the computer chat rooms that apparently suggested he might be gay. Enlisted with the Navy, he was serving with the Marines in the "individual augmentation" program, which allows the military to pull talent from whatever branch they need to, in order to fill shortfalls such as that of the highly trained Arabic linguists. Under "don't ask, don't tell," the military has fired at least fifty-eight Arabic linguists. 

Stephen Benjamin, who agreed to talk to researchers at the Michael D. Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was discharged from the Army this March from Ft. Gordon, Georgia. Benjamin, 23, attended the Defense Language Institute, the military's premiere training school for foreign linguists. Graduating in the top ten percent of his class, he scored a 3.3 on his Defense Language Proficiency Test, well above average. He then became a Cryptologic interpreter, responsible for collecting and analyzing signals and assigned targets to support combatant commanders and other tactical units. Arabic interpreters work with intelligence agencies to translate target cables from stateside and foreign military bases as well as providing critical translation for combat and logistics units on the frontlines. Benjamin was first introduced to Palm Center researchers by the leaders of the Call-to-Duty Tour (www.calltodutytour.org). 

In October 2006, the Army Inspector General conducted an audit of a government communications system and investigated seventy service members for abusing the system. Benjamin said he was called in for questioning, and was asked about a comment he made in which he said, "That was so gay -- the good gay, not the bad one." Out of the seventy people, a small number, including Benjamin, were eventually investigated for violations of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Although he is not sure which comments prompted the investigation that led to his discharge, he said he had passingly referred to social plans that would have revealed he is gay. He said that some of the worst violations of the government computer system involved people having cyber sex on the system, but those people retained their jobs. 
Benjamin was aware of the risk of being monitored, but assumed the military would be focused on other issues. "The risk was always there," he said, but in some cases, this system "was our only means of communicating," especially for those stationed in Iraq. 
Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, who is writing a book on "don't ask, don't tell," said the loss of people like Benjamin highlights the hidden costs of the current gay exclusion policy. "The military often suggests that it fires people only when they make 'statements,' as though they are willful and flagrant violations of the law," he said. "This is a facile misunderstanding of military life. The reality is that surviving combat, working efficiently, and bonding with peers are all dependent on this human element of military life, where people talk about their lives with one another. It's hard to see how cybersex on a government communications network is not considered a career-ending offense while mentioning that you had a date last week is such a large threat to unit cohesion that the individual must be fired." 
Benjamin said he was out to many of this peers, and "out entirely" in his office. In nearly every case, no one cared that he was gay, and those who did care did nothing about it. "The only harm to unit cohesion that was caused was because I was leaving," he said. "That's where the real harm is, when they pull valuable members out of a team." 
During his investigation, Benjamin was given the chance to rebut the charge that he was gay. His Navy supervisor and a civilian supervisor suggested he write a statement insisting he was not gay, but lawyers at the Service Members Legal Defense Network advised him that if he lied and was later found to be gay, he could face a less-than-honorable discharge and even fraud charges for writing false statements. 
His JAG officer told him the gay exclusion policy is "politically unpopular," and that military attorneys don't like enforcing the policy, an assertion reinforced when his commanding officers told him they were sorry they had to lose him. His Captain's evaluation read, in part: "EXCEPTIONAL LEADER. Extremely focused on mission accomplishment. Dedicated to his personal development and that of his sailors. takes Pride in his work and promotes professionalism in his subordinates." 
When he was discharged, Benjamin was preparing to re-enlist for another six years. He volunteered to deploy, hoping to serve in Iraq so he could work in the environment -- and with the soldiers -- he had directly assisted as an Arabic translator at Ft. Gordon. "I wanted to go to Iraq so I could be in the environment with the soldiers I was protecting," he said. Though he could not discuss the details of his intelligence work because many were classified, he said it involved sending reports with critical information out to the frontlines, and he knew that in his work, he "made a difference." 
Benjamin is now working in Atlanta at a computer company. When his military discharge became real, he recalled: "I was kind of in disbelief. I kind of expected someone to go, ha ha, were just kidding." But no one did. While he's enjoying his new job, it doesn't compare to what he did in the military. "I'm happy where I am now," he said "but I'd be happier in the military, doing something that mattered a little bit more."

----------


## Flagg

> One side IS better than the other. IMHO, sanctimonious hypocrisy is worse than ordinary hypocrisy, particularly when it's been the sanctimonious Republican hypocrites who have benefited in the past from passing laws that have made my life miserable (well, almost miserable). 
> 
> These sanctimonious Republican Christian Fundamentalist anti-gay frauds have campaigned on their own supposedly "better morality" all the while they've been out bonking someone's young innocent unmarried daughter, and lied to their wives about what they were doing. 
> 
> Democrats don't do that to me. 
> Democrats didn't kick me out of the military for being gay.
> From what I've seen, Republican politicians have deep-rooted sexual problems; they hate gays and can't control themselves around women, and then they won't own up to their hypocritical conduct.
> And after all that, they have the gall to say that I'm a pervert? 
> 
> ...



But Tock what you are doing is making this personal. So Democrats are better for YOU, there are plenty of people the Democrats are not better for, or does only your rights matter? Why not stop voting for either of these corrupt parties and vote for someone who is truly for ALL the people. Whether they be gay, foriegn, rich or poor.

Right now you are basically saying that the Dems are for the minority groups and the Reps are for the rich religious fruitloops. What about everyone else though?

----------


## Tock

> But Tock what you are doing is making this personal. So Democrats are better for YOU, there are plenty of people the Democrats are not better for, or does only your rights matter? Why not stop voting for either of these corrupt parties and vote for someone who is truly for ALL the people. Whether they be gay, foriegn, rich or poor.


Any politicans responsible for policies that remove good soldiers in wartime to satisfy religious prejudice are not useful politicians. With the US fighting Arabic speakers, and interpreters in short supply, barring gay people from working with the military only helps the enemy and prolongs the war. 

And what sense does it make to get rid of an army soldier who's so talented at what he does that he's awarded the title "Soldier Of The Year?" What moron decided that exemplary soldiers can't serve in the military?

I'm not arguing for any special treatment for anybody. I'm saying that when the Republican Party insists that talented gay people be sh** on and prevented from participating like everyone else, bad things happen. 
When Republicans keep good soldiers out of the military, then someone else has to take their place. Maybe that would be you, or a friend of yours, or maybe someone who didn't want to go to war.

Any politician who supports stupid policies needs to be voted out of office, regardless of party. And any politician who supports getting rid of the Army's Soldier Of The Year, or who supports getting rid of one of the few people who can understand what the military's enemy is saying, doesn't deserve re-election.

Yep, it's personal because it happened to me. But it's more than that, because the negative consequenses affect other people.

----------


## Tock

> Right now you are basically saying that the Dems are for the minority groups and the Reps are for the rich religious fruitloops. What about everyone else though?


I'm for honest politicians, good policy, mom and apple pie. Everyone else ought to like that . . .

----------


## Flagg

> I'm for honest politicians, good policy, mom and apple pie. Everyone else ought to like that . . .


Then don't vote for the Dems. Likewise don't vote Republican either.

----------


## thegodfather

> I'm for honest politicians, good policy, mom and apple pie. Everyone else ought to like that . . .


Not really, your previous posts in this thread all equaled, Democrats Good, Republicans Bad. A very blatant example of stereotyping. It is NO DIFFERENT than some bigoted asshole saying "All Gays are pedophiles." Not all of the 200+ Republicans serving in the House, and 30 serving in the Senate believe in the neo-conservative ideology that you and I oppose which unfairly targets gays and others. Even if the majority do, there are SOME who do not. So you have made an unfair assessment of Republicans. Then, if we consider all members of the party throughout the country, and particularly ones like myself who are champions of civil rights and strict construction of the Constitution, even less fall into this category. 

Just as I am sure that you would be very unhappy if someone labeled all gays as pedophiles INCLUDING YOU. I am very unhappy that you are saying ALL Republicans believe in this twisted ideology when I certainly DO NOT, and many others like me who are a part of the party do not. 

It is a shame that while trying to criticize a GROUP of people for their behavior, you are engaging the same behavior that they are allegedly guilty for.

----------


## BgMc31

> Not really, your previous posts in this thread all equaled, Democrats Good, Republicans Bad. A very blatant example of stereotyping. It is NO DIFFERENT than some bigoted asshole saying "All Gays are pedophiles." Not all of the 200+ Republicans serving in the House, and 30 serving in the Senate believe in the neo-conservative ideology that you and I oppose which unfairly targets gays and others. Even if the majority do, there are SOME who do not. So you have made an unfair assessment of Republicans. Then, if we consider all members of the party throughout the country, and particularly ones like myself who are champions of civil rights and strict construction of the Constitution, even less fall into this category. 
> 
> Just as I am sure that you would be very unhappy if someone labeled all gays as pedophiles INCLUDING YOU. I am very unhappy that you are saying ALL Republicans believe in this twisted ideology when I certainly DO NOT, and many others like me who are a part of the party do not. 
> 
> It is a shame that while trying to criticize a GROUP of people for their behavior, you are engaging the same behavior that they are allegedly guilty for.


I thought you were a Libertarian, Godfather...

----------


## Tock

> It is a shame that while trying to criticize a GROUP of people for their behavior, you are engaging the same behavior that they are allegedly guilty for.


Let me say this about that . . . 

The Republican Philosophy as expressed in their various state and national platforms are quite uniform in their distaste and disgust for gay people, and express their hope and desires that gay people should forever be trampled upon and if possible, imprisoned.

As an example, here's the latest one's views about gay people from the People's Republican Republic of Texas:
=============


http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServ...pdf?docID=5841

*Marriage Licenses* 
- We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to

perform a marriage ceremony for such.
*Homosexuality* 

– We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and

leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been
ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an
acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are
opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between
persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.
We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values
*Texas Sodomy Statutes* 

- We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution
to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
======================= 

Compare and contrast those neanderthal gruntings to the comparatively enlightened prose of Texas Democrats:
http://txdems.3cdn.net/85aa04579763d20cf0_9dm6bnhbo.pdf 

We believe democratic government exists to achieve as a community, state, and nation what we
cannot achieve as individuals; and that it must not serve only a powerful few.
We believe every Texan has inalienable rights that even a majority may not take away
…the right to vote
…the right to fair and open participation and representation in the democratic process
…the right to privacy.
We believe in freedom
…from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions
…to exercise civil and human rights

…of religion and individual conscience. 


Texas Democrats believe all people possess inalienable rights that are protected by freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution, which places responsibility on our government to protect and
defend those freedoms just as those freedoms place responsibilities on us as individuals. We believe
in and support.
• 

equal opportunity and equal protection before the law for all people;

• 

full protection of civil and human rights;

• freedom from government interference in our private lives and personal decisions; and

• freedom of religion and individual conscience.


*Supporting the Men and Women of the Military*
Texas should demonstrate its support for military families and communities. We insist that our
military members on active duty and in the Reserve receive fair pay and allowances. They must be

the best organized, trained, and equipped fighting force possible. We encourage city, county, state,

and federal elected officials to review present benefits and determine how they can be enhanced.
We also demand truth in recruiting, including a provision that parental permission be required to
authorize the recruitment of minors. Texas Democrats support:
• 

providing appropriate personal and vehicle protection for all combat military personnel;

• 

programs that assist families of deployed service members in managing difficulties created by

longer and more frequent deployments of Guard and Reserve personnel; such as counseling,
debt service delays, tax deferrals, and basic needs assistance;
• 

initiatives to financially assist families of service members who suffer an extended loss of

employment income due to extended or repeated deployments;
• 

interstate cooperation to enable the successful transition of families forced to move from one

state to another, including changes involving public education, job searches, and health care
continuity;
• 

preventing predatory lending practices targeted at military personnel and their families, such

as payday loans and sale-leaseback transactions;
• 

a prohibition of a military draft absent a congressional declaration of war; and an end to

practices that change deployment and other terms of service for existing military personnel
in the middle of the game that amount to a draft in disguise;
• 

*the right of all military personnel to serve without discrimination, sexual abuse or prejudice*

*and the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; and*
• 

the right of female soldiers and dependents to have the same access to the full range of

reproductive choices and related services that are provided to others;

• adequate time off between deployments.
============================= 

If Republicans had their way, I'd be in prison for sex with my sweetie. Lucky for me, they don't. I appreciate what the Democrats and their broader views on human sexuality and privacy have done for my basic freedom to be left alone by the police. For that, they get my vote. 
Sure, nobody else gives a rat's butt about gay-related issues. There's lots of other issues that the Democrats are better than Republicans, for sure. Medical marijuana, for instance. I never liked it myself, but for medical doctors who's professional experience lead them to prescribe it for their patients, well, who the Fu** are Republican politicians to tell them how to practice medicine? 
I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect, or even that they're pretty good. I am saying, however, that they're a lot better than the current crop of Taliban Republicans. When voting time comes around, I compare all the candidates, and any one of 'em that wants to put me in prison for being gay is unlikely to get my vote. That pretty well rules out all the Republicans.

----------


## thegodfather

> I thought you were a Libertarian, Godfather...


Ideologically I am a Libertarian in every way. However, the Republican party's ORIGINAL platform was almost solely based on Libertarianism. I am a registered Republican because there is far too much bias in the United States against 3rd party's to be effective. So I am pragmatic about the fact that in order to effect any change I have to do so within the Republican party. There is a rift going on within the party right now between people like myself, which they have called "Ron Paul Republicans," and the Neo-Conservatives like Lindsey Graham(R-SC). We are trying to effect change from within the party structure, and have been successful in putting our members in positions within the state GOP structures. The main goal is to take the Republican party back to its ROOTS and its ORIGINAL MESSAGE of limited government, non-interventionism, free markets, individual accountability, sound monetary policy, strict interpretation of the Constitution, and civil liberties. 

Basically, when a candidate looks like he adheres to all of the ideals mentioned, which are essentially libertarian in nature. Ron Paul will endorse them. So the more members we can get in the House&Senate, the more we can start to push the party in the direction it once was. We have Rand Paul and Peter Schiff considering a run for the Senate, and several other people running for spots in the House soon. 

That's why its rather annoying to hear disparaging remarks about ALL Republicans when there are people who are trying to make a difference in the party. Right now I'm only able to offer monetary support, but will become more active once I'm finally done collecting degrees.

----------


## thegodfather

> If Republicans had their way, I'd be in prison for sex with my sweetie. Lucky for me, they don't. I appreciate what the Democrats and their broader views on human sexuality and privacy have done for my basic freedom to be left alone by the police. For that, they get my vote.
> 
> Sure, nobody else gives a rat's butt about gay-related issues. There's lots of other issues that the Democrats are better than Republicans, for sure. Medical marijuana, for instance. I never liked it myself, but for medical doctors who's professional experience lead them to prescribe it for their patients, well, who the Fu** are Republican politicians to tell them how to practice medicine?
> 
> I'm not saying that Democrats are perfect, or even that they're pretty good. I am saying, however, that they're a lot better than the current crop of Taliban Republicans. 
> [/LEFT]


You pick out extreme examples and then extrapolate that onto the entire Republican party. Once again, no different than if I were to find several instances of homosexuals sexually abusing small children, or finding homosexual sites that gave tips on how to insert various rodents into the rectum, and then saying that all homosexuals engage in this abusive treatment of animals. 

I think both parties if you look at the policies they produce, are interested in regulating your behavior, they just have different reasons. The Republicans say that you shouldn't do X behavior (smoke marijuana) because its morally wrong and destroys the 'social fabric' of the United States. Then the Democrats say you shouldn't do X (smoke marijuana, shoot heroin) because it's bad for you and they want to "protect you from yourself." I mean really dude, 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

----------


## Tock

> You pick out extreme examples and then extrapolate that onto the entire Republican party.


Extreme? Hardly. I wouldn't suppose you'd understand, since you're not gay.

You've never been kicked out of the military just for being gay. Never lost a job, never got run off from a timeshare presentation, never endured years of public school with the taunt "faggot." Never had close friends beaten by police (yep, it was caught by TV photographers), never lived in a community where police raids and abuse by government agents were commonplace. Never had close friends die from HIV and then have Republicans say they deserved to die. Never had an elected judge announce in the Dallas Times Herald that he gave a light prison sentence to a double-murderer because his victims were gay (and the judge was re-elected). Never had close friends commit suicide because they couldn't deal with the stress of the continuing BS.

Extreme examples? Hardly. I've been gay all my life, and I've seen stuff like this all my life. 

All my life.

One of the high points of my life was hearing that the police in Texas couldn't put me in jail for having gay sex. I sincerely hope that you will have better things to cheer.













> Once again, no different than if I were to find several instances of homosexuals sexually abusing small children, or finding homosexual sites that gave tips on how to insert various rodents into the rectum, and then saying that all homosexuals engage in this abusive treatment of animals.


Ya, I've seen lots of that crap too. Mostly from Republicans beating Democrats over the head for supporting equal rights for gay people and criticising Democrats as the party of immorality; and then those same Republicans get caught in adultery, rape, child sex, bigamy, etc.

BTW, that "rodents in the rectum" thing is an urban legend.












> I think both parties if you look at the policies they produce, are interested in regulating your behavior, they just have different reasons. The Republicans say that you shouldn't do X behavior (smoke marijuana) because its morally wrong and destroys the 'social fabric' of the United States. Then the Democrats say you shouldn't do X (smoke marijuana, shoot heroin) because it's bad for you and they want to "protect you from yourself." I mean really dude, 6 of one, half dozen of the other.


Check out the progressive Democrats in Callifornia and Obama -- as a first step to dismantling the drug war, in California they aren't going after the folks using medical marijuana. It ain't much, but it's a glimmer of hope; it's the sort of hope that the Republican party doesn't inspire.

----------


## Kratos

> Ideologically I am a Libertarian in every way. However, the Republican party's ORIGINAL platform was almost solely based on Libertarianism. I am a registered Republican because there is far too much bias in the United States against 3rd party's to be effective. So I am pragmatic about the fact that in order to effect any change I have to do so within the Republican party. .


I feel the same way, if they could just abandon the God lovers as part of their voting base the party would be better off.

----------


## Kratos

I think don't ask don't tell works quite well and is much more pro gay then it's given credit for.

I have two friends who are officers in the navy and they explained it to me. It works different then most people think.

You can straight up be caught naked in the same bed by an officer. He's can't ask you about it, and you can't tell about it. You can act as gay as you want, they can suspect all they want, but at the end of the day, it isn't their buisness and they can't ask you. Big deal, nobody is kicked out of the military for being gay unless they insist on being open. Is that really so bad? How open should is equal. If you're on a sub and you feel like making out in your off duty time, should other people on the boat be forced to see it, or if they don't it isn't fair to your rights...keep in mind there are no women on subs for a reason.

----------


## Tock

Nope, DADT has lots of flaws.

Suppose someone discovers you're gay and they blackmail you? Do you pay the blackmail and stay in the military, or report the blackmail and get kicked out?

Everyone has the Constitutional right to petition their elected representatives. If a gay soldier writes a letter to their Congressman saying that he's gay and wants a change in DADT, and word leaks back to the military, should he be kicked out for violating DADT?




If a third party tells someone in the military that you're gay, then in their eyes, the issue has been raised, and they pursue the issue. Lots of guys have been kicked out this way.

If the military discover you've been posting on a blog and said you were gay, then in their eyes, the issue has been raised, they presume you have told, and they pursue the issue.

If they do a random inspection of your dorm room and they find a gay version of Playboy magazine, they can ask. 

Sometimes a supervisor or coworker or a subordinate asks anyway, or they find out from a third party, and spread the news around. An investigation begins, and then you're out. 

While they aren't supposed to ask, they still do. It's illegal for them to ask, but once they ask, it's illegal for you to lie. But even if you prove that they broke the law by asking first, once the info comes out, then you can't get back in. There is no penalty for anyone who violates the law by asking if you're gay, so nobody hesitates to ask. 

Essentially, the law is very one-sided, and gays have absolutely no recourse.


Here's the "60Minutes" program on DADT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBN8V42xEM&NR=1


And here's another take on the policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtx6L...eature=related

Ron Paul on DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&NR=1


28 more Generals call for the end of DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmiMx...eature=related


Pentagon Chief (General Pace)
Gay Soldiers Violate "Laws of Nature"
General Pace: "The ucmj makes it illegal for members of the same sex or unmarried members of opposite sex to have sex with each other. It is the law, and I'm upholding it."
( . . . of course, only gay soldiers are kicked out of the military, and few if any adulterous heterosexuals are . . . )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe2bJ...eature=related


Does it make sense to discharge this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLk5ZHz8PY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldSyh9Zisdk

. . . or this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NZDR...eature=related

. . . or this woman, who was a highly decorated nurse?
http://www.cammermeyer.com/










> I think don't ask don't tell works quite well and is much more pro gay then it's given credit for.
> 
> I have two friends who are officers in the navy and they explained it to me. It works different then most people think.
> 
> You can straight up be caught naked in the same bed by an officer. He's can't ask you about it, and you can't tell about it. You can act as gay as you want, they can suspect all they want, but at the end of the day, it isn't their buisness and they can't ask you. Big deal, nobody is kicked out of the military for being gay unless they insist on being open. Is that really so bad? How open should is equal. If you're on a sub and you feel like making out in your off duty time, should other people on the boat be forced to see it, or if they don't it isn't fair to your rights...keep in mind there are no women on subs for a reason.


Basically, DADT is in place to satisify the prejudices of ignorant "bubbas" who think it's ok for heterosexuals to "make out" in front of gays, but not vice versa. Ya, kick out the guys with critical skills, and make the idiot jerks happy.

Clearly, DADT is a stupid policy to make stupid jerks happy.

----------


## thegodfather

Making ASSUMPTIONS is never good practice. I have had one friend who was GAY die from AIDS....So thank you...

Anyway, I am trying to make rational analogies and you are retorting with emotions and not logic, so I'm not going to push the issue or argue any further, as it's obviously something that you are emotionally invested in, and since I am not, I see no reason to argue further and potentially hurt your feelings or insult you because I respect your posts for the most part, when they are based on facts and rational argument. Take care...

----------


## Tock

> I respect your posts for the most part, when they are based on facts and rational argument. Take care...


These posts _are_ based on facts.

The current restrictive laws against gay people are primarily the work of Republicans, and efforts to mitigate those laws are the work of Democrats. Republicans are against intimate personal freedoms for consenting adults, Democrats want to eliminate government regulation of sexual conduct for consenting adults. 
Vote for Republicans and their policy of sex control if you like. Me, I'll vote for Democrats and less government interference.

----------


## binder

> These posts _are_ based on facts.
> 
> The current restrictive laws against gay people are primarily the work of Republicans, and efforts to mitigate those laws are the work of Democrats. Republicans are against intimate personal freedoms for consenting adults, Democrats want to eliminate government regulation of sexual conduct for consenting adults. 
> Vote for Republicans and their policy of sex control if you like. Me, I'll vote for Democrats and less government interference.


You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.

You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).

----------


## Flagg

> You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.
> 
> You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).



I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else, but there is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and addressing just this one is not going to make America a better place on a whole. And all the while people are voting Democrats or Republicans because they foolishly believe that deep down, somewhere, someone from one of these parties is going to change the status quo. But they wont. But that still wont stop people voting for Pepsi or Cola. And things will continue to be like this until a third option is chosen instead. And this is a problem that is prevalent everywhere in the West.

----------


## binder

> I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else, but there is a multitude of issues that need to be addressed and addressing just this one is not going to make America a better place on a whole. And all the while people are voting Democrats or Republicans because they foolishly believe that deep down, somewhere, someone from one of these parties is going to change the status quo. But they wont. But that still wont stop people voting for Pepsi or Cola. And things will continue to be like this until a third option is chosen instead. And this is a problem that is prevalent everywhere in the West.


exactly! it's a POLITICIAN thing not a party thing....the lines between republican and democrat are very thing. The only thing people distinguish between the 2 parties are the pointless personal choice issues. Both parties run the country almost the same except when it comes to abortion, gay rights, religion...basically what econimists call the "small issues". Not because they don't mean anything, but they honestly do not affect the way the country as whole runs. It only affects the beliefs of the people. Our dollar will not get any more valuable by forcing all 50 states to support gay marriage. Our healthcare will not become cheaper because some politician decides that abortion isn't legal. etc, etc

----------


## Tock

> I agree. I also agree with Tock that gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else . . .


I almost agree with that.

I don't think the problem is that "gays should be given all the equal rights of anyone else." 

The problem is that government has been used to single out gays as people who _should not_ have the same rights as everyone else. Eliminate these needless, foolish, and abusive laws that focus on what gay people cannot do, and simutaneously reduce the size and role of government, and _everyone_ is better off.

----------


## Tock

> Our dollar will not get any more valuable by forcing all 50 states to support gay marriage.


Again, the solution is to reduce the size and cost and influence of government by eliminating the unreasonable laws against gay marriage. 

Republicans here in Texas (and a number of other states) would be happy to hunt down copulating gay couples, at government expense, and then throw them in jail at another $40,000 a year (each) of public expense. That is not the hallmark of small government that minds its own business. That is tyranny. Republican Tyranny.

---------------

I might be closer to the conservative ideals of small government than you suspect, and you might be closer to the liberal ideals of equality than I appreciate. Maybe we could be happy living together in the same city, but not on the same street . . .

----------


## Tock

> You need to make the distinction: less government interference on ONE ISSUE that is an issue personal to you. They are far from being part of less government control all together. Look at all the things President Obama is trying to put controls on now. So he loosens the reins on 1 issue and you think he's for smaller government? think again.
> 
> You're making a broad statement based on 1 issue (out of the thousands being faced every day).


It's a start, dontcha think? 

Of all the unnecessary things that government spends money on, don't ya think that chasing down and expelling gays from the military is a big waste of money? Don't ya think that all the time and $$$ spent on getting legislation passed and repealed singling out gays for special punishment is another huge waste of time? Just the Utah Mormons alone spent $100 million fighting gay marriage in California. Crazy. They could have had 30 shiny new pipe organs built instead, and maybe had a few accordians thrown in for good measure for the Osmonds. 

So . . . for smaller government, eliminate all laws regulating gay relationships. What's so difficult about that?

----------


## Iron_Pig

> It's a start, dontcha think? 
> 
> Of all the unnecessary things that government spends money on, don't ya think that chasing down and expelling gays from the military is a big waste of money? Don't ya think that all the time and $$$ spent on getting legislation passed and repealed singling out gays for special punishment is another huge waste of time? Just the Utah Mormons alone spent $100 million fighting gay marriage in California. Crazy. They could have had 30 shiny new pipe organs built instead, and maybe had a few accordians thrown in for good measure for the Osmonds. 
> 
> So . . . for smaller government, eliminate all laws regulating gay relationships. What's so difficult about that?


 
I spent 25 years in the army Tock I never saw or heard of any gay man or women being kicked out for being gay. Had a gay medic on my helo for 4 years and he was open about it nothing ever happened to him did his 4 and out the door. So if your saying you were kicked out there is more to the story than your telling here. and yes he was in a relationship while in

----------


## Tock

> I spent 25 years in the army Tock I never saw or heard of any gay man or women being kicked out for being gay. Had a gay medic on my helo for 4 years and he was open about it


Sort of like the first guy in this _60 Minutes_ video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related



> nothing ever happened to him did his 4 and out the door. So if your saying you were kicked out there is more to the story than your telling here. and yes he was in a relationship while in


Well, I wasn't the only one kicked out for being gay. Of course, that was back in the 1970's, back when they kicked out Leonard Matlovich too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich
Technical Sergeant *Leonard Matlovich* (1943–1988) was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
Matlovich was perhaps the best-known openly gay man in America in the 1970s. His fight to stay in the United States Air Force after coming out of the closet became a _cause célèbre_ around which the gay community rallied. His outspoken manner resulted in articles in _The New York Times_ and a television movie on NBC. His photograph appeared on the cover of the September 8, 1975 issue of _Time_ magazine, making him a symbol for thousands of gay and lesbian service members.[1] In October 2006, Matlovich was honored by GLBT History Month as a leader in the history of the GLBT community.





Since 1992 when Don't Ask Don't Tell began, the number of gay soldiers kicked out was higher during peacetime, and declined by about half during wartime. I guess that says something about something . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell 



Back when I was in the USAF, they'd do terrible things to you if they discovered you were gay. If you volunteered the information, you might get an honorable discharge, or they might screw ya over and give ya something less. I had been brought up in a family that never talked about heterosexual sex, much less gay sex, and I spent most of my free time in church. So I really had no idea what the recruiter was talking about when he asked me if I had homosexual inclinations. But, when after I had spent some time away from my sheltered environment in boot camp, I learned a lot of things in a hurry. One day I saw Sgt. Leonard Matlovich on the cover of Time magazine, and everything made sense, and much to my horror I thought, "Yep, I'm like that guy." 
I kept a poker face for the next year or so, until I figured out what I was going to do. I don't mind saying that that sort of position is unpleasant, stressful, and very lonely. But I made it through ok, decided to tell the USAF that I was gay (before they did a random inspection in my dorm room and discovered all the books I had picked up on the subject), but that I wanted to stay in. At first they said I was lying and that I just wanted to get out early, and I replied, "No I'm not lying, but if you still want to keep me in, I'll be happy to stay." They chewed on that for a few months, then sent me to interview with the OSI (the USAF version of the FBI) and then with a psychologist, and then 6 months later they gave me a paper saying I was officially discharged and I had 24 hours to get myself and all my stuff off the base.

The saddest thing was what happened to my dog. 
I had been a cop, had been training sniffer and guard dogs. They couldn't find anyone who wanted to work with my sniffer dog afterward, so they shipped him back to San Antonio, and they put him to sleep (I ran into the guy who did it a few years later at Texas A&M, a Col. Craig who ran the military dog program). I wish they had told me they were going to kill him, because I would have taken him. 

Oh well.

Anyway, I'm not suprised you didn't see anyone get kicked out for being gay. They liked to keep that sort of thing hush-hush. I made sure everyone in my barracks and as many people as I could tell in my squadron knew what was going on. Only two other guys out of a hundred objected to my being there. I had a few others tell me to let them know if anyone gave me any sh** and they'd fix the problem for me. My immediate supervisor (a Staff Sgt) was a tongues-talking Christian fundamentalist, and he liked me, said I was doing a good job, and said, "While I am convinced that you are wrong, I will defend your right to be wrong to the death." I still went out to eat with the guys at night; nothing changed there. Even went camping in the Ouichita Mountains with some of 'em. Twice. 

That's what happened to me. I was in an experimental program too, which cost some $$$ to re-do because they had to start all over with another group of dogs and dog trainers. Oh well.

----------


## Iron_Pig

> Sort of like the first guy in this _60 Minutes_ video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't the only one kicked out for being gay. Of course, that was back in the 1970's, back when they kicked out Leonard Matlovich too:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich
> Technical Sergeant *Leonard Matlovich* (19431988) was a Vietnam War veteran, race relations instructor, and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star.
> Matlovich was perhaps the best-known openly gay man in America in the 1970s. His fight to stay in the United States Air Force after coming out of the closet became a _cause célèbre_ around which the gay community rallied. His outspoken manner resulted in articles in _The New York Times_ and a television movie on NBC. His photograph appeared on the cover of the September 8, 1975 issue of _Time_ magazine, making him a symbol for thousands of gay and lesbian service members.[1] In October 2006, Matlovich was honored by GLBT History Month as a leader in the history of the GLBT community.
> 
> 
> ...


 

I am sorry for that Bro really I am you have to remember there were a lot of asshat officers looking to put feathers in there caps at that time. People should just mind there own damn business and let people alone. My medic was a great guy and I told him to his face I do not care who you belive in or the politics you choice to follow you will do your job and that is that and he did.

----------


## Tock

> I am sorry for that Bro really I am you have to remember there were a lot of asshat officers looking to put feathers in there caps at that time. People should just mind there own damn business and let people alone. My medic was a great guy and I told him to his face I do not care who you belive in or the politics you choice to follow you will do your job and that is that and he did.


 
Thanks, I appreciate that. And I agree.

I still miss my dog, though . . .  :Sulk:

----------


## Kratos

> Here's the "60Minutes" program on DADT
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAE6j...eature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBN8V42xEM&NR=1
> 
> 
> .



Did we watch the same program?

----------


## Kratos

> I kept a poker face for the next year or so, until I figured out what I was going to do. I don't mind saying that that sort of position is unpleasant, stressful, and very lonely. But I made it through ok, decided to tell the USAF that I was gay (before they did a random inspection in my dorm room and discovered all the books I had picked up on the subject), but that I wanted to stay in. At first they said I was lying and that I just wanted to get out early, and I replied, "No I'm not lying, but if you still want to keep me in, I'll be happy to stay." They chewed on that for a few months, then sent me to interview with the OSI (the USAF version of the FBI) and then with a psychologist, and then 6 months later they gave me a paper saying I was officially discharged and I had 24 hours to get myself and all my stuff off the base.
> .


Can I ask what you had to gain from bringing your personal life to the attention of your commander?

I think gays should have equal rights, don't get me wrong. I feel like DADT is working well though. You have the right to be gay, but does it have to be known at work. I mean the military is a unique enviroment. Maybe the guy in the next bunk over would just perfer not to know, why should your right to be open take precidence over his preferance not to know?

As younger service men come up in the ranks and become superiors (75% of whom support gay service), less will report it even when told. But seriously, why must you tell?

----------


## Tock

> Can I ask what you had to gain from bringing your personal life to the attention of your commander?


Sure.

This was back in the 1970's, before DADT. Back then, if they discovered you, you could be royally screwed. They could (and sometimes did) kick ya out with dishonorable discharges, just because they discovered you were gay. They'd interrogate one guy, get him to spill the beans on lots of other gay people, and then they'd spill the beans on other people, and lots of careers would be ruined. They'd keep on probing until either they ran out of people or people started doing crazy things like suicide. 

Oh ya, one major reason I wanted to keep my Honorable discharge was that I wanted to keep my eligibility for Veterans Benefits. There are 5 possible discharges ranging from Honorable to Dishonorable, and you don't get VA education benefits if you get less than a General discharge. They were doing a lot of surprise random barracks inspections, and it was pretty much just a matter of time before they discovered my library in my dorm room and figured out what my story was, then kicked me out without my VA education benefits.

I had known a couple other guys who had been through witch hunts, and my defense lawyer guided me through the system as best he could. He advised me just to tell 'em I'm gay, and if they asked about anyone else, not to say anything. I got through ok, got out with an honorable discharge, so I didn't have to explain anything in subsequent job interviews.









> I think gays should have equal rights, don't get me wrong. I feel like DADT is working well though. You have the right to be gay, but does it have to be known at work.


Here's my take on that . . . 
An environment where some guys get to talk about their love lives and other guys can't, well that doesn't sound very equal to me. 
Imagine yourself caught on a planet of gay people where you have to fake having a boyfriend 24/7. And all the while you're secretly wanting to be with a woman. Sure, it's not the worst thing that could happen to a person, but it's entirely unnecessary. And unfair.

----------


## Kratos

> Sure.
> 
> This was back in the 1970's, before DADT. 
> 
> Here's my take on that . . . 
> An environment where some guys get to talk about their love lives and other guys can't, well that doesn't sound very equal to me. 
> Imagine yourself caught on a planet of gay people where you have to fake having a boyfriend 24/7. And all the while you're secretly wanting to be with a woman. Sure, it's not the worst thing that could happen to a person, but it's entirely unnecessary. And unfair.



In my opinion the military is a diffent place now from the experience you had. You don't have to pretend you're with a women, you just can't talk about being with a man. It isn't 100% equal, no, but it isn't as bad as some people think.

Allowing people to be open I think would create some unique problems, because then you have to create policy around it. For example, now you have to make sure a sufficent number of gay people are being promoted. Adopt a policy of how harrasment both physical and mental will be delt with. And the other way around...because what if an openly gay guy happens to be a meat gazer in the mens room or shower, or makes comments to str8 guys like, "I'd like to hit that honey." The reality that gay sex will happen on duty, and how to deal with it. I mean, if some guy has a boyfriend on a sub...do they get to have sex or kiss each other? Some gay people will cross the line between being open and flauting their sexuality, and that isn't fair to the other people they serve with. You have to admit the military isn't just any working enviroment, so it might just be easier to leave the personal lifstyle choice just under the surface in the eyes of the brass, rather then it being for hatred of gay people. I think you'd be impressed with the progress that has been made from what I hear from friends in the military.

In fact the acceptance of gay people in the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years has made huge strides. Some day gay people will be able to serve openly, I'm confident of that, and I support it. It must be a smooth transition however and Rome wasn't built in a day. The current military policy isn't the atocity that gay rights groups make it out to be. There are some specific examples of individuals that prove it isn't perfect. It isn't the end answer, but it is a stepping stone.

----------


## Tock

> In my opinion the military is a diffent place now from the experience you had. You don't have to pretend you're with a women, you just can't talk about being with a man. It isn't 100% equal, no, but it isn't as bad as some people think.


It wasn't really all that tough back then, either. Almost everybody in my K9 section knew about me, but it wasn't any big deal. Everyone had more important and more interesting things to concern themselves with. Military law required them to turn me in, but nobody did. Of all the people I ever dealt with, only one had anything smart to say, and one other guy seemed to be uncomfortable in my presence. I still showered with the rest of the guys as usual, and it wasn't any big thing (no pun intended).

The biggest barrier to my success in the USAF was military policy. The official policy said that just my being there would result in a negative effect on morale. I asked almost everyone in my squadron if they thought that was true. They had a different opinion -- they thought the rule was rediculous. I was working with dogs at the time, and I don't think they cared one way or the other, either. 

---

I can picture several ways in integrate the military. Chances are it's gonna be done the hard way. But, if it was up to me, I'd do it a bit at a time. I'd put all the new gay recruits into non-combat positions for about 20 years while the remaining opposition to gay people softened. Any gay people who found themselves in combat situations could stay as long as they felt they weren't in danger from getting hurt by homophobes in their unit. I'd deal severely with officers who wouldn't assist with the integration efforts. 
A lot of other countries have already figured out how to do this, and it would be worth finding out what tactics they used to make integration work for them.

When it happens, fundamentalists will bleat about the Judgement of God and the End of The World and Immorality and etc etc etc. Given how many hypocritical conservative fundamentalists have been caught in all sorts of immorality themselves, I don't thing they'll get as much traction with that BS as they used to.

Nevertheless, there will always be a few individuals who will be inclined to murder gay people. A few of us are going to get wasted, but all of us are going to have to pick up from there, and keep on going.

----------


## kickinit

This gets two FARTs on my ass-o-meter.

----------


## Tock

> This gets two FARTs on my ass-o-meter.


 Why would anyone fart on your ass-o-meter?

----------


## Kratos

> They were doing a lot of surprise random barracks inspections, and it was pretty much just a matter of time before they discovered my library in my dorm room and figured out what my story was, then kicked me out without my VA education benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .





> The biggest barrier to my success in the USAF was military policy. The official policy said that just my being there would result in a negative.



It sounds like your biggest barrier to success in the USAF was you. You basically asked to be kicked out, rather then throw out your porn collection.

Why did you choose to serve knowing what their policy was?

----------


## Tock

> It sounds like your biggest barrier to success in the USAF was you. You basically asked to be kicked out, rather then throw out your porn collection.


I was not speaking euphamistically. I had a library of the best serious books I could find on homosexuality at the time (1977) which included a first edition of Kinsey's 1948 report "Sex in the Human Male." Nary a single porno mag in the bunch, unless you want to call GQ porn. I took every one of them with me when I went to plead my case before -- I forget what it was called; they had a Colonel review the charges against me and listen to what I had to say. But it amounted to two grocery sacks of books, and they were deposited in whatever record they kept. 
Oh ya, I corresponded with Dr. Wardell Pomeroy at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, and he was kind enough to send them a notarized statement saying (something to the effect) that they knew of no reason why a gay person should be excluded from military service only because they were gay. That's small potatos these days, but back then, it was the dark ages. 
Ya, one of the "popular" reasons they didn't want gays in the military -- they said we'd be security risks. I told them they could tell my parents, my brothers and sisters, everyone in my family, everyone that I worked with on base, everyone that I knew; I told them they could post somebody to walk ten feet in front of me whereever I went, shouting, "homosexual! Homosexual!" and then nobody could blackmail me. 
But they didn't really care about that. They were just idiots parroting whatever sounded good at the time. Me, I was trying to deal with something; those fools, brainless & bigoted, were the ones who the military kept.









> Why did you choose to serve knowing what their policy was?


I didn't. 

I enlisted in the 1970's, and I grew up around people who didn't talk about gay people or sex, even in general. I spent most of my free time in church, so I wasn't going to hear anything about sex there. 
For whatever reason, when I enlisted in the USAF, I was under the impression that it was customary for guys to like other guys, but instead of doing anything about it (which I never saw), they devoted their lives to marriages that were more-or-less happy. That's all I ever saw, that's all I ever knew. 

The upshot is, when I signed up in the recruiter's office, I had no idea what the word "gay" meant. I had spent 12 weeks talking to a shrink because I was miserable and depressed (mostly because of my awful home situation), and he asked me once if I was happy being male. I thought that was an odd question; he may as well have asked me if I was happy not being a refrigerator. And no, I never wanted to wear women's clothes, and no, I never craved anything up my rear. Honestly and truly, I had no idea what he was talking about. Nevertheless, I distinctly recall thinking that the shrink was attractive. But I never once connected what I was thinking with what I was probably repressing in my mind. 

I had a weird upbringing, weird parents, and I was steeped in fundamentalist Christianity, and I knew more about the the Bible than I did about my own sexual orientation. That's just the way things were back then. 

----------

If you ever get a chance, pick up a copy of Dr. Jerry Reuben's famous book, "All You Wanted to Know about Sex But Were Afraid To Ask." It's chuck full of bizarre notions, especially the chapter on homosexuality. It was, however, the best information most people had on the subject. Everything about gay people was stereotypes from start to finish. And that was the source material the USAF shrink (and probably the OSI people) used to question me. "What's is a gay person's favorite holiday? -- Halloween." (I didn't know that.) 
The world has come a long, long way since those dark days . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyth..._Afraid_to_Ask)
_Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask)_ is a book (1969, updated 1999) by U.S. physician Dr. David Reuben. It was one of the first sex manuals that entered mainstream culture in the 1960s and had a profound effect on sex education and in liberalizing attitudes towards sex. It was the most popular non-fiction book of its era and became part of the Sexual Revolution of modern America.[_citation needed_]
The book was translated into 54 languages and sold in 52 countries and ultimately reached more than 150 million readers. In 1972 it was loosely adapted by Woody Allen into a comedy film of the same name.

----------


## Bull_Nuts

And here is an example of whats wrong with demoncrats....

Nancy Pelosi saying debate with democratic politicians is un-american but bumped her gums constantly when Bush was in office....

Hipocracy at its finest.

And its so fvckin funny to watch her attempt to explain her political stance when given difficult questions....she's she sounds more idiotic than bush ever sounded...what a dumbass cvnt! rotmfflmfao...

----------


## Bull_Nuts

> As younger service men come up in the ranks and become superiors (75% of whom support gay service)



and where did you get this data?

and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum

hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket

----------


## Flagg

> and where did you get this data?
> 
> and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum
> 
> hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket


Why bother joining this site? Just to fvcking troll? You know you'll probably be banned for saying shit like this so why bother? Your homophobia is that rampant that you have to join random sites just to vent?

----------


## Kratos

> and where did you get this data?
> 
> and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum
> 
> hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket


I must have made it up jackass
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071802561.html

"Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said gay people who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993. 

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for openly gay people to serve in the U.S. armed forces."

Of course there will always be ignorant poeple like you though who have built up anger, becuase secretly you have gay tendencies and need to over-compensate.

----------


## Tock

August 19, 2009
------------------

Republicans are quick to condemn, but slow to take responsibility for their own adultery:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/..._ensign_affair

*Republican US Senator Ensign: I did nothing 'legally wrong'*

FERNLEY, Nev. – Sen. John Ensign told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his affair with a friend's wife was a mistake but not as bad as former President Bill Clinton's relationship with a White House intern because he didn't lie about it under oath.

"I haven't done anything legally wrong," the Nevada Republican said.

"President Clinton stood right before the American people and he lied to the American people," Ensign said. "You remember that famous day he lied to the American people, plus the fact I thought he committed perjury. That's why I voted for the articles of impeachment."

Ensign made the remarks before being introduced to a standing ovation from about 100 people at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon in rural Fernley, about 40 miles east of Reno.
Ensign opened his speech by acknowledging what he called a "distraction."

"I think it would be inappropriate to start any other way than to say I'm sorry," he said. "I've said I'm sorry. I can't say I'm sorry enough. I made a big mistake in my life and I apologize once again to all of you."

The luncheon was Ensign's first public appearance in his home state since acknowledging in June that he had an extramarital affair with former campaign aide Cynthia Hampton.

Ensign resigned as head of the Republican Policy Committee after admitting to the affair with Hampton from December 2007 to August 2008. Hampton's husband, Doug, was Ensign's administrative assistant in his Washington, D.C., Senate office and the families were friends.

Ensign's attorney has also said that Ensign's parents paid the woman and her family $96,000 after learning about the affair.
Ensign once called on President Bill Clinton to resign after his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky erupted in 1998, declaring: "The truth must come out."

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, government watchdog group, has called for investigations into Ensign by the Senate Ethics Committee and the Federal Elections Commission.
Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said Ensign's distinction between his situation and that of Clinton was essentially an attempt to claim his affair was less contemptible.
"Isn't that a little like saying, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?,'" she said in a statement Wednesday. "One politician comparing his illicit affair to another's is a sure sign his career is in trouble."

Ensign told the AP on Wednesday that he can understand how some people might "have a problem" with the fact he called for Clinton's resignation but won't resign himself.

"But if you look at the times ... I was in the House of Representatives but basically was sitting in judgment of the president evaluating the case. I was basically a jurist at that point. I thought there was a violation of a felony," he said.
Ensign said in the interview he never considered resigning from the Senate and is focused on fulfilling his six-year term.
"What we're trying to do is go around to people in the state of Nevada and tell them how sorry I am for what I did. But now I need to focus on earning their trust back by working harder than I've ever worked for them," Ensign said. "There's no magic to hard work. It is literally focusing on what is important to Nevadans. Right now, the biggest issue Nevadans and the rest of the country face is health care."


Ensign spoke for about 30 minutes at the luncheon and answered a handful of questions submitted on cards. None were about the affair. 
Later Wednesday he toured a U.S. Forest Service project at Lake Tahoe aimed at thinning forests to reduce fuel loads in an effort to reduce wildfire threats. On Thursday, he is scheduled to host the 12th annual Tahoe Environmental Summit that Clinton and Vice President Al Gore first hosted in 1997.

----------


## thegodfather

> and where did you get this data?
> 
> and if thats true its because they would prefer to have the fag take the bullet instead of a fellow hetero...another good way to rid the world of fag scum
> 
> hell yea...put all those homo's on the front line....they can take a real rocket up the a$$ instead of a flesh rocket


You won't be here long. There is no room on this board for the type of bigoted hatred that you are spewing. I have no tolerance for uneducated inbred pieces of shit like yourself. How does a human beings personal preference with who they choose to love and have sexual relations with in any possible way, shape, or form effect your life AT ALL? It doesn't. 


Anyway, I don't see one single reason that a persons sexual orientation should matter in military service. It sounds akin to the baseless reasons that people gave about why "Negroes" couldn't serve in the military or fly planes. Them there "Negroes" just ain't as smart as everyone else, that there's a fact. There is no reason that if every heterosexual person talks about their wife/girlfriend/fiance that a homosexual person in the military shouldn't be allowed to talk about the great weekend they had with their boyfriend before returning to base. So f**king what if it makes someone uncomfortable? I'm sure there are still some people in the military who are uncomfortable being around black people, or asian people, or indian people, does that mean they shouldn't be in the military because they make someone uncomfortable? The Constitution doesn't guarantee that you won't have your feelings hurt. It just guarantees a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has no obligation to make sure your feelings aren't hurt. Quite simply if you are uncomfortable in a situation, either remove yourself from it, or get the f**k over it.

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Let me say this about that . . . 
> 
> The Republican Philosophy as expressed in their various state and national platforms are quite uniform in their distaste and disgust for gay people, and express their hope and desires that gay people should forever be trampled upon and if possible, imprisoned.
> 
> As an example, here's the latest one's views about gay people from the People's Republican Republic of Texas:
> =============
> 
> 
> http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServ...pdf?docID=5841
> ...




Apparently some politicians still have common sense.  :Smilie: 


What's next, allowing people to marry cattle, sheep? It makes as much sense as homosexuality.

----------


## BgMc31

> Apparently some politicians still have common sense. 
> 
>  
> What's next, allowing people to marry cattle, sheep? It makes as much sense as homosexuality.


Do I detect of bit of hypocrisy in your posts, Murilo? Aren't you a "live and let live" type guy? 

Besides that, your logic is flawed because animals, minors, etc., can't enter into a legally binding contract whereas two consenting adults (regardless of gender) can.

----------


## Iron_Pig

The party you are with has nothing to do with your actions as an adult
It is who you are as a person you morals if you think you can get away with adultry then you will do it. IMO some will stand on there high horse and preach some will not.

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Do I detect of bit of hypocrisy in your posts, Murilo? Aren't you a "live and let live" type guy? 
> 
> Besides that, your logic is flawed because animals, minors, etc., can't enter into a legally binding contract whereas two consenting adults (regardless of gender) can.



You just want to hold people down who love their livestock. All they want is to be married and be happy.  :LOL:

----------


## kickinit

I'm sorry but what rights do "GAYS" not have? Your just cry babies, because you can't get married, well guess what you won't win the black music awards either, or be a nascar driver, but no no no GAYS want to marry this week so they deserve it WHY? It's a joint of a man and woman END OF STORY!

Please oh please tell me what rights you dont have as gays?

----------


## Tock

> well guess what you won't win the black music awards either


Too late, we already have.






> or be a nascar driver


 Oops, too late, we already are.








> but no no no GAYS want to marry this week so they deserve it WHY? It's a joint of a man and woman END OF STORY!
> 
> Please oh please tell me what rights you dont have as gays?


The right to marry carries with it a multitude of benefits. 

If my sweetie and I could marry, then if either one of us died, the other would automatically inherit the other's stuff. My family is cool with the issue, but if one of his family members decides to challenge my right to assume ownership of his property, then we're going to court. 

You heterosexual people don't have to deal with that BS.

--

In most states, gay people cannot adopt.

Myself, the only way I like kids is if they're barbequed. But I know some gay couples that would make excellent parents. But they can't, because their state's laws say that gay people can't adopt.
------------------------

Taxes. 

Unmarried gay couples usually pay more taxes than married couples do. 

And in the states that allow gay marriage, well, they have to file one set of taxes as a married couple for the state income tax. Then they have to file two more sets of state income taxes, each being single, because the federal tax forms don't recognize two married males and the tax forms require information from their state forms as single, not married. And then they have to file two federal tax returns, when if they were married, they'd only have to file one.

So, while married heterosexual couples in Massachusetts, Iowa, Conneticut, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire only have to do one state and one federal income tax form, married gay couples have to do five.

What's up with that?
------------------

Me, I could have had a career in the USAF if I was heterosexual, but they kicked me out for no other reason than that I'm gay. It cost them 2 years of training expenses to replace me. Oh yeah, and a dog, too. They killed my sniffer dog because they couldn't find anyone who wanted to work with him. 
And while I had been working with a hundred or so people, I only ever encountered two who didn't seem to be comfortable with me. Neither of them were in the same barracks as me. 

I've done just fine for myself over the years, but it seems to me that the military's anti-gay policy costs taxpayers an awful lot of money. 
------

I also want the right to beat the living daylights out of idiots who antagonize reasonable people. In some states, they can't bear the embarrassment that comes from effeminate queens who beat the [email protected] out of burly weightlifters. It's ok in those states for heterosexuals to beat them up, but not for gays. 
----------

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Too late, we already have.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, too late, we already are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Waaaaaaaa!  :Tear:

----------


## kickinit

> Too late, we already have.
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, too late, we already are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point that you totally missed is BEING GAY doesn't give you rights to things YOUR not entitled to! I'm not saying Gay people haven't won any of those things, but JUST BECAUSE YOU GAY! doesn't mean you should win!

So you think you should get benefits that men and women getting married should have? Just like I said, just because you gay doesn't entitle you to SHIT! Well except a dick in your ass, but two each your own.

Getting kicked out of the military just makes me think you can't read a contract, nothing more. You agreed to the contract knowing you were making a FALSE statement because it would benefit YOU! I have said it once and I will say it again LIBERALS=GAYS, your looking just to push the limits and get your benefits even if they aren't yours to be had.

You talk about forms too, hummm its funny I spent 2 yrs getting forms and shit together and shit just for my wife of 7 years now to live with me in the states. AND I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT, please oh please, lets complain about this too, im going to win....

----------


## Tock

> My point that you totally missed is BEING GAY doesn't give you rights to things YOUR not entitled to! I'm not saying Gay people haven't won any of those things, but JUST BECAUSE YOU GAY! doesn't mean you should win!


14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides equal protection under the law for all citizens. If you can get married, then so can I. That's not because I'm gay, it's because I'm a citizen of the USA and The Constitution says I can have all the rights that you do.











> Getting kicked out of the military just makes me think you can't read a contract, nothing more. You agreed to the contract knowing you were making a FALSE statement because it would benefit YOU!


Not at all.
When I enlisted, I had no idea what the word "gay" meant. Back in 1975 the topic wasn't commonly discussed, and when it was, the word was "fag." Honestly and truly, I had no idea my sexual orientation was any different than anyone else's. I hung around with lots of church people who never talked about sex one way or the other. 










> You talk about forms too, hummm its funny I spent 2 yrs getting forms and shit together and shit just for my wife of 7 years now to live with me in the states. AND I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT, please oh please, lets complain about this too, im going to win....


I have no complaint about your mail-order bride coming to the US. But if you and your wife have that right, then any gay person has the right to do the same thing. I'll bet I could find me a real cute boyfriend from Hungary. 


So what do you think -- should I have the same rights that you have, or should one of us have more rights than the other?

----------


## kickinit

> 14th Amendment to the US Constitution provides equal protection under the law for all citizens. If you can get married, then so can I. That's not because I'm gay, it's because I'm a citizen of the USA and The Constitution says I can have all the rights that you do.
> 
> Not at all.
> When I enlisted, I had no idea what the word "gay" meant. Back in 1975 the topic wasn't commonly discussed, and when it was, the word was "fag." Honestly and truly, I had no idea my sexual orientation was any different than anyone else's. I hung around with lots of church people who never talked about sex one way or the other. 
> 
> I have no complaint about your mail-order bride coming to the US. But if you and your wife have that right, then any gay person has the right to do the same thing. I'll bet I could find me a real cute boyfriend from Hungary. 
> 
> So what do you think -- should I have the same rights that you have, or should one of us have more rights than the other?



You just a lost cause, hense why this thread isn't getting anyone except for YOU. Your pathetic and just a liberal piece of shit. Keep fighting and the real word will keep knockin your punk ass down.

Im out.

----------


## Tock

> You just a lost cause, hense why this thread isn't getting anyone except for YOU. Your pathetic and just a liberal piece of shit. Keep fighting and the real word will keep knockin your punk ass down.
> 
> Im out.


Typical cop-out from someone without a reasonable counter. A message consisting of name-calling, poor grammer, misspelled words, punctuated by a retreat.

Oh well.

----------


## kickinit

> Typical cop-out from someone without a reasonable counter. A message consisting of name-calling, poor grammer, misspelled words, punctuated by a retreat.
> 
> Oh well.


Nah you are what you are... I don't care or claim to change it, could careless never said there weren't dropouts, dickheads, punks, idiots etc... in this world. Don't care to change them just it's fun to hear their story and either run them over or push them to the side.

Happy now? Have fun talking to yourself.....  :Owned:

----------


## amcon

tock what r u gay and from dallas? just asking...

----------


## thegodfather

> You just a lost cause, hense why this thread isn't getting anyone except for YOU. Your pathetic and just a liberal piece of shit. Keep fighting and the real word will keep knockin your punk ass down.
> 
> Im out.


Quoting the Constitution and proving that you made an incorrect statement out of ignorance is a lost cause, how so?

----------


## Tock

> tock what r u gay and from dallas? just asking...


 Yes and sometimes.

----------


## Kratos

not telling people how to live their life as long as they aren't bothering anyone is what makes this country not Iran.

If the military can make a case it diminishes the fighting capacity of the armed forces to have open gay people serving and they can provide stuidies, I don't have a problem with it staying the way it is. It isn't the boyscouts after all. Nobody is actively looking to kick gay people out of the military anymore. Nobody can blackmail or turn you in under current policy. The only obligation of gay people in the military is not to talk about pleasures of the butthole at work...it isn't so bad.

Anyway Tock, it's a shame that gay people feel so obligated to the dems. There is more to running a country then sex life. The fact they can count on gays and minorities isn't great for the country.

----------


## Tock

> Anyway Tock, it's a shame that gay people feel so obligated to the dems. There is more to running a country then sex life. The fact they can count on gays and minorities isn't great for the country.


Gay people come from every walk of society, so gay people are just like everyone else. Same % of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, wackos, geniuses, sex addicts, Christian fundamentalists (I used to be one), business owners, etc etc etc as everybody else. 
My guess is as soon as the Republicans dump the anti-gay BS, you'll see a migration of some gay Democrats to the Republicans. 

Have you seen the Texas Republican Party platform? I put a link to it on one of my posts (#45) in this thread. It's really vicious to gay people; they want to restore jail sentences for gay people making whoopie at home. That's not the sort of thing calculated to gain support from gays. And they want to make it a felony for a gov't employee to perform a marriage for 2 gay people. 

I don't really care if church members want to act masochistic and volunteer for punishment from their church; that's their privelege. But I'm not a Christian, and I don't want them to push their religious beleifs off on me. But every time they say, "God told me to [email protected] on you because you're gay," that's exactly what they're doing. Screw 'em all (God told me to say that).

----------


## Kratos

> My guess is as soon as the Republicans dump the anti-gay BS, you'll see a migration of some gay Democrats to the Republicans.


problem is the attitude of the people in texas to gay people.
the republican party is trying to give the people what they want.
it is not like this in CT...it would go over like a lead ballon

it would be great if no political party would go after the votes of the ignorant
then you would see a 3rd party emerge I would guess for those who wish to control others.

Maybe locally republicans would loose to an independent party in bible belt areas...but it would be good for the party on a national basis.

voting based on what goes in your rectum is not the way to put this country in a positive direction. It gives dem's a voting base no matter what stupidity they want to push. They can count on gays, minorities, teachers, hollywood actors and celebs, brainwashed MTV youth. Everyone but people who care about the real issues that face our nation.

poor people will always out-number rich as well.

Democrats believe in bottom-up economic policies (some would call that socialism) where republicans trend to trickle down (hence deregulation, free markets, tax breaks, loopholes).

bottom up is unsustainable in my mind

so it's a pretty good number of growing population they can count on and the general direction is not what I would like to see

----------


## tboney

> True.
> 
> But at least the Democrats have the good sense to mind their own business when it comes to sex and religion.


Another fuzzy headed dem!!! Thats absurd! Both parties are full of corrupt politicians to claim one as worse is moronic!

----------


## tboney

> problem is the attitude of the people in texas to gay people.
> the republican party is trying to give the people what they want.
> it is not like this in CT...it would go over like a lead ballon
> 
> it would be great if no political party would go after the votes of the ignorant
> then you would see a 3rd party emerge I would guess for those who wish to control others.
> 
> Maybe locally republicans would loose to an independent party in bible belt areas...but it would be good for the party on a national basis.
> 
> ...


I totally agree!

----------


## Tock

> bottom up is unsustainable in my mind


Top down is unsustainable too, because the people at the bottom want a say in how things work, even if they're stupid.
Bottom up is unsustainable, because the ideas are not always rational.

Letting everyone vote on things gives the poor people a way to overthrow government leaders without violence. Aside from that, we'll always have leaders who think they have a better way, and rabble who who want to do it some other way.

Nevertheless, as long as the Republicans continue their efforts to turn me into a criminal, I'll vote against them. IMHO, I'm better off poor and free, than poor and in jail.

----------

