Democrats & Liberals Archives

Will Repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Help Obama?

For those of us who comprehend the logic that equal rights encompass all people of any persuasion where their rights don’t infringe upon the rights of others, repealing DADT would be a monumental step forward for our country. And for those of us who can’t see passed their own blind hatred and ignorance it could just mean the end of the world. But if President Obama keeps his promise to repeal this antiquated, embarrassing practice, America could take at least one step in the right direction under his watch.

The problem is that the Right will use this as “proof” that Obama is trying his dandiest to destroy the fabric of America, as they see it. Equal rights have always been a bit of a quagmire for those who align themselves with hardliner religionists, and yes, that does include the Republican Party. The idea that non-whites, women, or any non-storybook fantasy land Normal Rockwell people are entitled to the same rights as white Christian men is something too horrible to contemplate for many people. For them, the idea that same-sex couples deserve the same rights as everyone else is unyielding proof that America is becoming Satan’s playground and that Barrack Obama is the Dark Lord’s errand boy. Innuendo intended.

Luckily there are those who have more than half a brain and see the championing of modern day equal rights as a proud endeavor for a socially backwards country to pursue. While Republicans would no doubt try to push the repealing of DADT either as trivial or monstrously horrific—it will be fun to see which one they decide—they will never give credit to the president for taking a stand against ignorance and Dark Age thinking. And even if Obama himself does not believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry—an interesting hypocrisy if he does repeal DADT—trying to bring more social equality to these people is not something to brush under the rug. It would make quite a loud statement to finally declare that if there are men and women willing to die for our country we should not ridicule them because they cannot help from which sex they find true love.

Of course the Republicans will probably counter this move by saying we should expect the repeal to allow admitted child molesters to become generals, but this will only serve to clarify the crazies amongst their base and further define the Republican part and its most extreme supporters as loons and fools. Personally I’m excited to see how this plays out.

Would a future Republican president dare repeal the repeal?

If President Obama does repeal this idiotic, foolish practice—do people really think a soldier will start dry-humping a fellow soldier during a firefight?—it would be his first domestic victory. It would, and should go down as a monumental shift in American social attitudes. The irony of America’s first black president championing gay rights would be something special to behold. Of course if he never goes the extra step to defend their right to marry it would greatly sour his support. But at least it would be a step in the right direction, not a step off the cliff as his detractors will no doubt claim. I, for one, would be proud of my country, and my president.

Posted by Michael Falino at October 12, 2009 8:07 PM
Comments
Comment #289242

I would greatly support his repeal of the DODT and DOMA. It should happen. It should have happened years ago. I just don’t think it will. I guess I am just not that optimistic, if he wanted to do it why has he not so far?

Sorry, but last time I checked he was in charge of that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 12, 2009 8:17 PM
Comment #289249
Sorry, but last time I checked he was in charge of that…

RH, I thought the power to repeal laws resided within Congress’ domain?

Apparently there are too many moderate/conservative Democrats in Congress to let the Democrats repeal DADT and the DOMA.

In any case, it should be a no-brainer to repeal these. In a country founded on freedom and liberty it is absurd that we deny homosexuals the ability to exercise the same rights handed without qualification to heterosexuals every day. Also, DOMA is a serious breech of federalism as it overrules a state’s rights to dictate how it defines marriage. It is absurd that a marriage that is valid in Massachusetts is null in South Carolina. This goes completely against the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

BTW there is currently a bill to repeal DOMA, but there is very little concrete action behind it. Respect for Marriage Act.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 12, 2009 8:46 PM
Comment #289250
RH, I thought the power to repeal laws resided within Congress’ domain?

That is true for DOMA, though his pressing for it to be acted upon in a Democraticly controlled congress would help get action upon it.

However, DODT is not a law, but a Department of Defense policy that the military operates under, and Obama is the Commander-in-Chief and sets that policy…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 12, 2009 8:54 PM
Comment #289252

I thought BHO said it was going to happen, but just didn’t say when. After Vietnam, when the volunteer army was newer, there were a lot of people accepted in the service, who were later forced out when they were able to get more recruits that they liked better. I think they still like lesbians for the most part, if they don’t tell, just not gay men. A gay man being anyone that someone else accuses of being gay.

Your rhetoric is a little extreme, “blind hatred and ignorance”, “Satan’s playground”, “monstrously horrific”, but the military has been infiltrated by those who have a specific religious agenda that they want to promote, which is detrimental to individuals who did not join the military to join a church.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 12, 2009 8:58 PM
Comment #289253

RH, thank you for the clarification. I too am disappointed by the Democrats inaction on this issue. I have a feeling that LGBT equality will have to come about at the state level. The six New England states have blazed a trail that the other 44 states should follow.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 12, 2009 9:08 PM
Comment #289259

Right now I would rather the military figure out how to win the wars and get our troops home. Can’t we fight about this in peace time?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 12, 2009 11:28 PM
Comment #289262

Peace Time? When would that be again?

Yeah, you are probably right, what’s millions of people’s individual rights, respect and being treated as human beings compared to killing arabs…

It’s not like Obama doesn’t have time to sign the order, what with travelling to try to get the Olympics, watching the MTV Music Awards and all… Oh, and he couldn’t find a pen I’m sure, with all of the belt tightening going on in the White House.

BTW, the fact that we are kicking people out of the military who are wanting to help us FIGHT this war and end it, including people who have unique capabilities to understand the languages and cultures in the region, just because they are gay…

Maybe we could be killing two bird with one stone!

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 13, 2009 12:07 AM
Comment #289263

It is actually pretty pathetic for pro-war politicians to speak against this. They should be all for bolstering the number of bodies they can throw in the fire. I guess even the concept of equal human rights is just too gruesome a concept for most Righties than not being at war with someone!

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 12:10 AM
Comment #289310
Peace Time? When would that be again?
Couldn’t have said it any better. Posted by: gergle at October 13, 2009 8:21 PM
Comment #289320

how about requiring people not to be idiots and make stupid comments? How about we make people own up to their stupidity? I guess this is why women shouldn’t serve, so a normal, regular man soldier doesn’t make an off-color comment.

And attitudes won’t change until they have to. We can’t just keep a policy like this going because it’s going to be difficult. The only way to move on is to break through worthless traditions, not embrace them because its safer to leave everything as it is. We’re talking about recognizing people’s rights, not protecting people who can’t think with an adult mind.

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 9:12 PM
Comment #289321

sorry for the double post. But shouldn’t we then require all soldiers not to talk about their heterosexual conquests as to not offend those respectful gays we’ve asked to keep quiet?

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 13, 2009 9:13 PM
Comment #289324

The Onion, on gays in the military and DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ
and a religious group:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZaisF3iLKg

Posted by: ohrealy at October 13, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #289327

Democratic Party - Democratic Reform Party

As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we join together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.

Many Democrats already know their elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

At the very least, many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer abiding to the sole reason the Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson - “Strong state governments with a weaker federal government.”

This is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party have clearly set their own agendas over the members of the Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people. Overall, many of them no longer think of themselves as being our elected representatives, and now refer to themselves as leaders in the true form of tyrants.

Most Democrats already know their pleas are only being answered by repeated insult and injury by their elected representatives within the Democratic Party. Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to worthy and honorable Democratic Party candidates.

So spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats, for the Democrat members are taking back control of the Democratic Party. Also, please don’t forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans. Thank you!

Web site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com

Posted by: Eric Pearson at October 14, 2009 12:29 AM
Comment #289330
So spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats, for the Democrat members are taking back control of the Democratic Party.
written by Eric Pearson, who also wrote on another blog
As a family man, a father of two and a grandfather of two with another grandchild on the way, I must admit I’ve hardly ever voted in my life, and I never will like politics. Nevertheless, I foresee the eventual downfall of this Nation unless something is done in the very near future. The only hope is another political party built on the values and principals this great Nation was founded on. Not being overly surprised, I couldn’t find such a political party to join and give my support. This realization happened about the same time one of my daughters told me I was going to be a grandfather again, so I reluctantly decided to begin forming the Democratic Reform Party. The date was on or about August 28, 2009, and since then I’ve learned I can use all the advice and help in forming this political party into what our founding fathers would be proud of.

How do you get from not being political, to trying to form a new party, then say you are a Democrat and are trying to reform a party you evidently never really ever belonged to?

Posted by: Cube at October 14, 2009 2:21 AM
Comment #289380

Cube
Well put.

EP
If you are so concerned about the Dems direction,start attending the county central committee meetings. Maybe even run for a seat or become an alternate. You will be asked to approve positions,perhaps give input for platform direction, attend the State of national conventions and caucuses. You will also get to know those nasty Dem”tyrants” of your imagination. You will likely find most politicians are actually pretty down to earth,committed people trying to do the best job they can. Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel try making the party better by lending a hand.

Frankly, you whole push has the faint smell of yet another Rovian attempt at party espionage.

Posted by: bills at October 15, 2009 7:50 AM
Comment #289382

David
You brought a chuckle. We all know the NAVY has never had any homosexuals,has never been know for having homosexuals, and was never celebrated in a song by the Village People.


EP
“As a family man, a father of two and a grandfather of two with another grandchild on the way, I must admit I’ve hardly ever voted in my life, and I never will like politics.”

How on earth can you connect being a grandfather and family man with not voting? In my book being a grandfather and family man is a good reason TO vote.

Posted by: bills at October 15, 2009 8:30 AM
Comment #289392


“Strong state governments with a weaker federal government.”

Ever heard of a guy called Jim Crow?

How about the Civil War?

I think the people are begining to understand that if they refuse to accept their responsibility for controlling their government, forcing it to do their bidding, wealth will fill the vacume.

Mike, I don’t think any of Obama’s constituents expect him to give them everything on their dream list but, they do expect a good faith attempt from him and that seems to be what they are not getting.

It seems to me that Obama entered the Whitehouse determined to protect his legacy and determined that the best way to do that was to not rock the boat in any meaningful way, to go along to get along.

Posted by: jlw at October 15, 2009 12:18 PM
Comment #289393
Ever heard of a guy called Jim Crow?

Yup, implemented and supported by the Democratic party until the 1960s…

How about the Civil War?

Heard of that too, fighting over whether or not a state could succeed from the union if they desired.

Neither of these things resulted in the overturning of the constitution or the makeup of the constitution dictating a limited federal government…

Heck, it didn’t even address the constitutionality of slavery, that was done by an amendment after the fact.

Sooo… what was your point again?

It seems to me that Obama entered the Whitehouse determined to protect his legacy and determined that the best way to do that was to not rock the boat in any meaningful way, to go along to get along.

So, more Clinton than Carter, do you think?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 15, 2009 12:38 PM
Comment #289422

jlw

It seems to me that Obama entered the Whitehouse determined to protect his legacy and determined that the best way to do that was to not rock the boat in any meaningful way, to go along to get along.
Posted by: jlw at October 15, 2009 12:18 PM

How do you figure. He working to face down the medical insurance establishment. He is also moving forign and energy policy away from control of Big Oil and the MIC. These are powerful groups, used to control. IMO BHO is a brave guy.He’s a lot more cautious and willing to compromise than I would be but then again, I would make a lousy CIC.


RH
Did you catch article of the Justice of the Peace in LA. that refuses to marry inter-racial couples? When interviewed his first words were,”I’m not a racsist,but….” Sounds awfully familiar.

Posted by: bills at October 15, 2009 11:15 PM
Comment #289430
Sounds awfully familiar.

To what?

If you want to make an accusation, have the ***** to make it. Otherwise you are just presenting cowardly arguments out there that you can hide behind by saying ‘but *I* didn’t say…’ like gergle and David have done in the recent past.

So, which is it bills?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 16, 2009 3:59 PM
Comment #289441

Rhinehold,

Thanks for the mention. Too bad, it’s just an ad hominem remark. Good, brave job.

Posted by: gergle at October 16, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment #289443

It’s a shame you can’t stand by your own words, gergle…

“What offends me is the double speak of people who claim no racism, who then proceed with racist undertones.”

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006728.html#288908

You were pointing that finger at me, gergle, and you can unring that bell, no matter how much you want to shake it off and pretend it never happened.

“I’m not calling you a racist, but you sure sound like one” isn’t going to fly as not calling people racist anymore…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 16, 2009 11:26 PM
Comment #289444

Rhinehold,

If you still don’t get what I was saying, I’ll repeat it slowly.

While I don’t agree that this JP and you are comparable, the logic in defending stupid remarks are similar.

You posted a cartoonish chart characterizing any liberal claim that racism exists in America and may be a source of criticism of Obama to be false.

I’m sure to you it was funny.

To me, it smacked of racism, in that it denied racism as something real; though as you might say, it lacked the balls to come out and say it.

So if you are really brave you might actually keep trying to defend this racism denying “joke”, or perhaps real courage might be shown in admitting to poor judgment.

I often self deprecate, by using the phrase..”and keep off my lawn”. to describe my advancing years. My father was an intelligent man who I watched descend over the years under the influence of several diseases. He became so convinced in his mental powers and sense of being right that he often lost the humility and honesty to recognize his own inner rage. His ability to make rational arguments slowly slipped from him.

I am not comparing you to my father, but I do respect the often cogent arguments you make here. That doesn’t mean I’ll give you or anyone a pass on making stupid remarks. That just isn’t what we do here.

I enjoy the challenges of debating someone of your intellect. Here’s hoping you can do the same.


Posted by: gergle at October 16, 2009 11:40 PM
Comment #289447
To me, it smacked of racism, in that it denied racism as something real

The fact is that pointing out a growing segment of the left’s desire to label anyone who disagrees with President Obama as racist is NOT denying that racism is ‘something real’. It takes quite a leap of logic to get there.

It is pointing out a fallacy that people want to make without regard for the feelings or thoughts of those who they are making the implications of racism towards.

You don’t get that by suggesting that my pointing out this ignorant argument has ‘racist undertones’ is an equally bad use of the ‘I’m not saying you are racist but you sure sound like one’ attack that I am no longer putting up with.

So, we both agree that you did make the assertion that what I did had ‘racial undertones’, which is the same thing as calling someone racist without having to man up and say it outright.

And again, to make sure you understand, nothing I have stated or done has ‘racial undertones’. Those are reserved for your mind, not mine.

Fact is, I understand the FACT that there is no such thing as race, that we are all black as we all came from a single ancestor in Northern Africa (we call her Eve for fun) and the only differences that we call ‘race’ is a result of long-term external alterations of our DNA through epigenomes and one day these will be merge together into a single race again thanks to our ability to move around the globe at will.

Based on that, why would I see anyone as anything other than a human being? Because they AREN’T.

And I’m sad that you seem to not see this fact when you admit that you have racial thoughts. It doesn’t make much sense to me, but I don’t fault you for it, other than that you haven’t accepted the reality that there really is no such thing…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 12:24 AM
Comment #289448

Rhinehold,

The fact is that pointing out a growing segment of the left’s desire to label anyone who disagrees with President Obama as racist is NOT denying that racism is ‘something real’. It takes quite a leap of logic to get there.

Which would be nice if that what the joke said. It didn’t, you didn’t. Please point to where this refinement after the fact, that you now make is anywhere in this cartoon. It isn’t.

So, we both agree that you did make the assertion that what I did had ‘racial undertones’, which is the same thing as calling someone racist without having to man up and say it outright.

Well, I did say that, which is not the same thing as what YOU said, or I would have said that.

While internet taunts and bullying may be great on 4chan, I’m not at all sure what place it has in this forum. Are you now calling me “gay”, but afraid to come out and say it?

Your rage appears to be overwhelming your sense of reasonable argument.

Fact is, I understand the FACT that there is no such thing as race, that we are all black as we all came from a single ancestor in Northern Africa (we call her Eve for fun) and the only differences that we call ‘race’ is a result of long-term external alterations of our DNA through epigenomes and one day these will be merge together into a single race again thanks to our ability to move around the globe at will.

Well, except race isn’t a genetic or evolutionary issue. From Wikipedia:

The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics.[1] The physical features commonly seen as indicating race are salient visual traits such as skin color, cranial or facial features and hair texture.[1][2]

Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial for scientific as well as social and political reasons. The controversy ultimately revolves around whether or not the socially constructed and perpetuated beliefs regarding race are biologically warranted; and the degree to which differences in ability and achievement are a product of inherited “racial” (i.e., genetic) traits.[3][4]

The fact is, you continue to avoid and apparently deny the issue of racism. This isn’t a discussion of the genetic issues of race. How about dealing with reality instead of continuing to try and turn the topic to side issues?

What you posted WAS a racist denying cartoon. Period. Why do you keep defending that?

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 1:03 AM
Comment #289449

error….racism denying

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 1:04 AM
Comment #289450
What you posted WAS a racist denying cartoon. Period. Why do you keep defending that?

Because it can’t logically be considered a ‘racism denying’ cartoon in any regard.

In no way does it suggest that racism doesn’t exist. Please point out to me where in the flowchart that I posted where it says ‘there is no racism’ or even comes close to suggesting such a thing.

What the flowchart pointed out was that if a person is in disagreement with Obama, it is because of racism. How does that translate into there being no racism exactly?

I’ll link to it again for your easy reference:

http://www.missourah.com/2009/09/15/obama-criticism-flow-chart/

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 1:15 AM
Comment #289451

BTW,

I agree a segment of people do overreact with the charge of racism. I’ve said that before. I disagree it’s a “growing segment” of liberals.

But again, that may have been you’re take on the joke, but it wasn’t there. It clearly made the claim ALL criticisms of Obama were labeled as racist. One may claim a picture of a black rapist being hung as only being a picture about hanging rapists, but the implication to anyone but the stupid is obviously not that.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 1:18 AM
Comment #289452

BTW, http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2009/09/racism-increases-67-since-january.html is a good semi-humorous look at my point, especially the main point that states:

Here are the facts. Racism has been rising steadily over the last few months. In recent polls, President Obama’s job approval number has dropped from 70% to 50%. This means the percentage of racists in this country has risen from 30% to 50% - a 67% increase in only eight months! Even more alarming, close to one out of two Americans are now racist. We have reached a tipping point. If this trend continues, the racists will soon be in a majority. Now, more than ever, we need the pundits and sages of the mainstream media to speak out. Racism is so insidious, so deep rooted, that we may not even know whether we are racists, unless or until bloggers and pundits make that determination through psychoanalysis.

See how racism has been rising in this country!

If you want to see why this is bad, read the end that states:

I guess what I find amazing about this discussion is that we are treating the racism claim about Obama’s opposition as if it were some kind of productive conversation starter.

It isn’t that, nor is it intended to be by those that offer it. It seems to me that whenever and wherever this argument is initiated, those initiating it do so in order to de-legitimize Obama’s opposition in its entirety and stop the policy conversation. Opponents are not portrayed as being influenced by a racial agenda, but as being controlled by it. The entire purpose is to deny them the sanction of reason so that their arguments may be ignored.

And that is garbage. Pure, unadulterated swill. If opposition to the policies of the President is going to be categorized in racial terms, then no national discussion is possible; there can be no negotiation with a fundamentally irrational opponent.

The tenor of the discussion over the last few weeks has put paid to any claim that Obama can be the first “post-racial” president, or any kind of transcendental figure on the issue. His own supporters have demolished that promising myth.

Just as the left was accusing the right of wanting to ‘shut down the debate’, so is the left doing that very thing by using this ignorant and tired old card.

And as a result they have destroyed any hope of really getting beyond race as an issue in this country any time soon. :(

It’s unfortunate that they couldn’t even side with their own elected President on this issue who had it right.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 1:26 AM
Comment #289453
It clearly made the claim ALL criticisms of Obama were labeled as racist.

And that differs from just about any joke, cartoon, lymric, how? Most people are rational enough to get the joke…

But even if someone were not to get it, how does suggesting that ALL criticisms of Obama were labeled as racist suggest that there is no racism?

It’s just an illogical leap, I can’t see how you get there, just please explain that one to me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 1:28 AM
Comment #289454
One may claim a picture of a black rapist being hung as only being a picture about hanging rapists, but the implication to anyone but the stupid is obviously not that.

?

Apparently I’m stupid, because if I see a picture of a ‘black rapist’ I accept it as a picture of a rapist who happens to be black… I’m not sure of any other implication that is supposed to be gotten from that without any other comment or address.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 1:31 AM
Comment #289455

Correction: all Republican criticisms.

But maybe you missed this line.

It’s pretty exhausting trying to keep track of what is legitimate criticism of President Obama and what is racial hatred. That’s why I developed this handy flow chart:

Perhaps you could point out where a legitimate charge of racism can be made by a liberal commenting on Republicans. In the absence of possible occurrences lies the logical lack of legitimate criticism. Perhaps David Duke wasn’t really racist after all? Maybe Rush just really liked Puff the Magic Dragon and the word Negro? Perhaps Joe Wilson, The congressman, who we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina’s state Capitol and denounced as a “smear” the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the ’48 segregationist candidate for presidenthad no racist leanings. Maybe Jimmy Carter and I, and millions never see racism and racist criticism of Obama in the South?

Of course, that’s not denying racism. It’s…just funny.(sarcasm)

Or perhaps you wish to make the real logical leap to show where all criticism of Obama by Republicans is labeled as racist, since that seems to be your point.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 1:43 AM
Comment #289456

Rhinehold:

If you don’t get the logic. Explain how one would criticize David Duke for being a racist in that chart, assuming of course, you will concede that David Duke is a racist.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 1:48 AM
Comment #289457

Shutting down debate doesn’t frankly seem to be on anyone’s agenda here that I know of.:)

Seriously, I don’t get that logic. Acknowledging that some attacks on anything and everything related to Obama, that seem to have no other basis than being associated with Obama, might be racist, is shutting down debate? How so?

The similar uses of displaying guns, shouting communist with those of the segregationists in the 50’s and 60’s are not lost on those who listen to fellow workers call Obama the Nigger in Chief.

Have you ever heard the song “Strange Fruit” by Billie Holiday? Is she really singing about fruit?

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 1:59 AM
Comment #289459
If you don’t get the logic. Explain how one would criticize David Duke for being a racist in that chart, assuming of course, you will concede that David Duke is a racist.

Errr, since everyone who opposes Obama, in the chart, is a racist, including the racists, then it has been pointed out.

You can’t say “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,” and try to play it off as just the few who are. That attack on the ‘overwhelming portion’ doesn’t just include the David Dukes and Rush Limbaughs…

That’s a very very wide swipe to take. And he isn’t the only one. A former Carter staffer tells of her having to deal with the calls of racism, increasingly over the last 30 years, as it has become the defacto method for silencing opposition to the Democratic party.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1818-Denver-Election-Reform-Examiner~y2009m9d18-President-Carter-racism-is-complex-remember

Anyone who is not a Democrat can most likely attest to the times they were called a racist for not being a Democrat… Try it some time and see how fast it happens.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 2:20 AM
Comment #289461

Rhinehold:

Perhaps the problem might be that Republicans continue to defend stupid stuff like Rush, and these tone deaf jokes, as well as make arguments that racism is no longer a problem, but Affirmative Action is racism.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 2:29 AM
Comment #289463

gergle,

Saying you are not a Democrat does not make you a Republican…

Just another in the attempts to group and marginalize opposing views…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 2:52 AM
Comment #289465

So’s this and it actually IS funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_IAN081P8I&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 3:10 AM
Comment #289466

Again, irrelevant as I, and millions more of us who the Democratic party is going to have to depend upon for re-election, are not Republicans…

But my trying to include us all together as you and others are want to do, you simply push us away and alienate us.

If that is what you are going for, keep it up I guess…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 3:28 AM
Comment #289467

Ummm, yeah right, like you’d ever vote for Obama, or anyone carrying a liberal banner.

I’m not running for office or trying to lure conservatives.

I doubt calling a spade a spade, to use a sometimes racist phrase, will cause anyone to change ideology.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 4:09 AM
Comment #289469
Ummm, yeah right, like you’d ever vote for Obama, or anyone carrying a liberal banner.

You do realize that I was a Democrat not too long ago, in fact I worked on the Dukakis campaign…

You have a better change getting me to vote for a Democrat than a Republican.

Of course, the way the party has been moving the past 20 years… I don’t think either party is going to be expecting my vote any time soon.

As for calling a ‘spade a spade’, you aren’t. That’s the point, you are calling a rake a spade…

And you know that if *I* had used the phrase you just did what the reaction of someone like you would be, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 4:30 AM
Comment #289472

Rhinehold:

Methinks you’re a shovel:), just digging in deeper.

If I had used the phrase without the caveat, so would I, which is why I used the caveat.

I just call it like I see it, but to clarify, still not calling you a racist. Just the joke.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 9:10 AM
Comment #289474

RH
Touchy,touchy. I just thought it was kind of amusing how ridiculous people get denying the obvious.The “intense animosity demonstrated” is overwhelmingly racially motivated. That’s obvious also. Saying so ,despite the fact that it causes many people to get their panties all wadded up does not change the fact.The animosity is NOT the same as disagreements on policy direction and I don’t recall that being said.
Where this might relate to the original post is a comparison with the racial integration of the military. The military does not put up with much BS. DADT is now a part of regrettable history just like segregation. I expect to hear some complaints and they will no doubt start out,” I have nothing against gays,but….” Care to wager?
What is surprising is just how fast gays have moved toward equal rights. Women’s suffrage was a struggle of 50 years. How long from emancipation to military integration? From the Stonewall riots and the fairly recent SCOTUS decision decriminalizing homosexuality is a blink of an eye compared to other broad empowering movements. I wonder if one reason is because at least in the West,gays are mostly white and often have bucks. Thoughts?

Posted by: bills at October 17, 2009 10:22 AM
Comment #289477

no wonder dukakis lost.

equal rights for all. equal treatment to all.

Posted by: bluebuss at October 17, 2009 1:38 PM
Comment #289484
I just call it like I see it, but to clarify, still not calling you a racist. Just the joke.

No, sorry, you did not call the joke racist, you called me racist for interjecting a racist joke into the discussion. I’ve quoted what you wrote, you refuse to accept responsibility for it and still want to change what you said to something else.

There was nothing racist with the joke, that you want to interject racism into it just bolsters my point.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 5:31 PM
Comment #289485
The “intense animosity demonstrated” is overwhelmingly racially motivated. That’s obvious also.

No, it isn’t. You assume it to be but reject the fact that other presidents have had more ‘intense animosity’ towards them and it had nothing to do with race. It is a convenient excuse that you want to use to explain something that you don’t understand.

Bush had MUCH more intense animosity towards him than Obama does now, but you can’t get away with calling that animosity racism, so you look for another reason and find it. However, with Obama, you just stop at the racism view because that fits your world view and don’t move on to the real reasons, stifling actual debate and preventing the discussions of the real issues to be dealt with. It’s just really sad. But it is also the modus operandi of the Democratic Party for the past 30 years, so I don’t really expect any different.

BTW, did you see the racial history of Carter? Did you see the way that some accused Ferraro and Clinton of being racist? Don’t you understand the power of the race card precisely because MOST people don’t want to be seen as racist. Again, if most people were racist, they wouldn’t care…

I wonder if one reason is because at least in the West,gays are mostly white and often have bucks. Thoughts?

First, to suggest that equality for gay and lesbian lifestyles is occurring quickly is a joke. It means that for the past 500 years there haven’t been gay people, that it is some ‘new phenomenon’. Search back to the history of Wilde and Turing.

As for most gays being ‘white and rich’, that’s possibly one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard and I’m honestly shocked that someone who purports to reject racist, homophobic sentiments actually believes that crap.

BTW, I did get a chance to find out about the Justice of the Peace in Louisiana and wow, what a wingnut…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 5:43 PM
Comment #289488

Rhinehold,

Again, I take full responsibility for what I wrote and said so in the original post, but not what you tried to make it into. If you can’t distinguish between the two, that isn’t my problem.

It was racism denying, which is equal to being racist in my opinion. Parsing an anti Semite or holocaust denier is quibbling nonsense. You have admitted as much when you were shown the chart had no means of distinguishing between legitimate racism and over reaction. You essentially claim all allegations of racism are overreaction. That, my friend, is denial of racism and is by extension racist.

Again, I have NEVER accused you of racism. You are smarter than that. You do often make poor choices in sticking it to the left and then become entrenched in defending what was a mistake from the start, in my opinion. First order of business should be to stop digging.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment #289490

Rhinehold,

BTW, did you see the racial history of Carter? Did you see the way that some accused Ferraro and Clinton of being racist? Don’t you understand the power of the race card precisely because MOST people don’t want to be seen as racist. Again, if most people were racist, they wouldn’t care…

Yeah, and it doesn’t bother me that they got called out on their insensitivity. Carter has admitted long ago, he grew up in a racist world and accepted it as the norm. He grew with the times.

I’ve yet to see anyone but the KKK, skinheads and neo nazi’s be proud of racism, but keep lying to yourself if you wish. The reason no one wants to be seen as racist, is because it’s stupid. The only power the charge has is in not wanting to be stupid. The way to change that is to….well….stop being stupid.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 6:49 PM
Comment #289491

Rhinehold,

I’ll do you one better. I was in a freshman or sophomore literature class studying Lysistrata at the University of Houston (in the late seventies). Several of the students were shocked to find that homosexuality didn’t start in the sixties, but even existed in Grecian times.
I just shook my head. Only in Texas. Well, not really.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 6:58 PM
Comment #289493
It was racism denying

Nope, not in any possible way is it ‘racism denying’.

which is equal to being racist in my opinion

Your opinion is denying racism exist IS being racist? Interesting take…

You essentially claim all allegations of racism are overreaction. That, my friend, is denial of racism and is by extension racist.

Again, no it isn’t. I don’t know what f’ed up mindset about racism you have, but pointing to a chart that shows that ANY opposition to Obama is racist in no way says that there is no racism in existence in the world. Talk about fallacies…

The ‘flowchart’ speaks for itself, you want to make into a reinforcement of racist views, that’s your problem. But it goes a long way to cementing the exact point I have been making all along and does a good job of backing up the Democratic party with it as no one on here has dared take a side…

So tell us, Democrats, do you all agree that the flowchart that was posted is racist? Do you want to go down that road with gergle or not?

Again, I have NEVER accused you of racism. You are smarter than that. You do often make poor choices in sticking it to the left and then become entrenched in defending what was a mistake from the start, in my opinion. First order of business should be to stop digging.

You accused my actions of having racist ‘undertones’. You freely admit this. Yet you don’t see how this is basically calling someone’s actions racist?

You want to make a leap that pointing out the fallacy of saying that all opposition to Obama is labeled as racist, as has been the case of many on the left over the past couple of months, is the same as saying that there is no racism, but don’t see how calling someone’s actions as racist is not similar to saying that they are racist, so you can have the ‘well, I didn’t say YOU were racist, just your actions’ out…

Well, that’s pretty much all I need to know.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 17, 2009 7:41 PM
Comment #289494

Rhinehold:

Not your actions, your post. Yes, posting something is an action, but I doubt you see it as racist, but then that’s why you or any candidate with those views will never win an election in a mixed race culture by promoting those views. Like Jimmy Carter and Ferraro, sometimes you are tone deaf. There, I said it, you are like Jimmy Carter:)

I think you make the tenuous argument that racism is all but over. I think it’s a phony and unrealistic argument. I think your arguments here are weak.

It’s suits your conservative agenda, but it does not match reality. I have no idea whether you actually believe it.

On a more positive note, the local paper in College station reports although 1000 protesters showed up for Obama’s visit (many comments disagreed and thought more like 400) few were from College Station. Aggies take pride in being polite and showing respect. I was impressed.

Posted by: gergle at October 17, 2009 7:54 PM
Comment #289500

Rhinehold,

I think gergle is trying to say that by making a mockery of accusations of racism, that chart implies that all such accusations are unjustifiable, thereby denying racism. He claims that a denial of racism is tantamount to being racist just as a denial of the Holocaust may be tantamount to antisemitism.

Do I agree with gergle?
Not exactly. Although I find the chart to be in bad taste, I do not think the mockery of accusations of racism implies that no accusation of racism is justifiable. However, I thought the chart was pretty immature and inaccurate. Plenty of people have disagreed with Obama without being labeled a racist. Carter was referring to a small group of people that have started to become a staple at certain protests. Nevertheless, they remain a small minority.

Posted by: Warped Reality at October 18, 2009 3:37 AM
Comment #289501

RH
I was referring to the struggle for LEGAL equality. I would have thought you got that. The Supreme court ,finally,finally ruled that the government had no business policing individual sexual behavior between consenting adults. I will let you know if I have the time to look it up, but I do recall that Scalia opposed it. Its a decision that should warm your Libertarian heart but a fairly recent one. It had the effect of overturning state laws against sodomy etc. Criminals do not have any expectation of civil rights.The real struggle for equal rights for the gay community blossomed after that.
I stand by my statement that most gays in the mostly white USA are white. Many are also fairly affluent. Why does that shock you?


I was in LA. in the early 70’s. After stopping at a gas station in the town of Nacitosh(pardon spelling), I went for a walk in a small park. In the center of the park was a bronze status of an Uncle Remus type Black man,bowing ,hat in hand. The plaque at the base said,” To the good darkies of Nacitosh”.

gergle

At least the KKK,skinheads and neo-nazis are honest.

Posted by: bills at October 18, 2009 7:57 AM
Comment #289524

I’m not sure if the cartoon is racist…I’m not sure if the cartoon creator is a racist…I am sure that those who find the cartoon funny are racists…I am sure that the cartoon was created to titillate racists.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2009 2:22 AM
Comment #289525

I am quite sure about the US policy

Posted by: James Parker at October 19, 2009 2:54 AM
Comment #289538

If you want to know how far conservatives have fallen regarding prejudice, just peek at this…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/gopers-demint-like-a-jew_n_326295.html

South Carolina strikes again!

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2009 6:28 PM
Comment #289543

SNL on Don’t ask Don’t Tell:

http://www.hulu.com/

Posted by: ohrealy at October 20, 2009 10:42 AM
Comment #289556

Mr. Falino -

Are you a supporter of forcing men and women in the military to bunk and shower together? Should that be next after getting rid of DADT?

Posted by: OttO at October 21, 2009 2:17 PM
Comment #289557

“forcing men and women in the military to bunk and shower together? “

Because that would obviously be so much more terrible than training them to kill other people.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 21, 2009 4:18 PM
Comment #289560

I just read the entire transcript between Gergle and rhinehold and it amounted entirely to stone throwing. Whenever one would make a point the other would simply plug their ears and say that’s not what they mean. Mostly, it was gergle covering his ears and singing la la la. Then it devolved (if it’s possible) to a ridiculous discussion of who is a better person and how much they each are respectively not racist. This is why serious discussions of racism rarely occur, because everyone focuses on what they think and why what they think is better than what anybody else thinks. It’s like arguing abortion.

I am going to reignite this by saying that for everybody born after 1980, racism is not an issue. I’m not saying racism is dead, because it is not. It’s alive and well and in fact will never, ever, ever die. It’s too much a part of human nature to disappear completely. However, when black people were given equal rights under the law, and laws were enacted to prevent employers from discriminating (not affirmative action, because yes gergle, giving a hand up to someone because of their race at the detriment of another person because of their respective race is racism), racism ceased to be the cultural and legal issue it once was. Yes, there are racists. No, it does not matter. Whenever someone does something actually racist (think judge in LA refusing to marry an interracial couple) the public outcry will correct such blatant racism. The “other racism” that people like to cry about (disparate incarceration rates, average wage, etc.) are less about race and more about where the person lives. White people in the same poverty stricken inner city areas have the same rates of incarceration and make less than a white person in the suburb. Good god, how racist! I’m with Rhinehold, let it go people. The civil rights movement (once gays get the right to marry, adopt and join the military universally, but you’re argument is about race) is over. We all have the same rights, time to move on.

Posted by: Dave at October 21, 2009 4:55 PM
Comment #289563

Otto, we force men in prison to shower together, and there is a very high rate of behavioral homosexuality in prison. Of course that’s besides the point. But what you are getting at is that we should keep women out of the military because men won’t be able to control themselves (that’s rape here in this country) or women won’t be able to control themselves around all those muscley hulked up man soldiers.

Come on, next argument please…

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 21, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment #289565

Dave:

The civil rights movement (once gays get the right to marry, adopt and join the military universally, but you’re argument is about race) is over.We all have the same rights, time to move on.

What about the rights of polygamists to marry? Someone should stand up for them.

Also the unborn, they have unequal rights.

Usually statements like this mean “When everyone I think should have rights has rights we can move on.”

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 21, 2009 7:24 PM
Comment #289566

This is a silly argument. In the middle of two wars this is not a time to be trying to change a civil rights issue. Personally I don’t care one way or the other, as long as a person can shoot straight.

My thought is to ask the generals how hard it would be to abandon don’t ask don’t tell. If they come up with a real good reason why it would harm are nations defense I would put it on hold. If they were reaching for reasons they I would suggest going ahead.

We are suppose to be focused on winning wars.

Like most gay issues, I don’t hear much of any problems with your average day to day gay people just trying to live. It’s the wild haired left wing wack jobs that are usually on the news. That gets old.

We hear of almost no gay issues through the press when dealing with the military. If don’t ask don’t tell were to go away I don’t think it would make much of a difference to the readiness of our armed forces. But before supporting it I would want someone with stars on their shoulder telling me before I voted that is was ok!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 21, 2009 7:36 PM
Comment #289567

How come it never seems to be the right time to tackle civil rights issues? Maybe all our wars and domestic strife is a long running plot to stifle the advancement of civil rights… no, I’m just kidding.

And about that slippery slope argument about “which group gets rights next”, lets focus on the topic. so called “unborn” rights are not even remotely related to this issue other than the matter of women having a right to what happens to their own body. And what if polygamists want to marry? If everyone is protected by law and ever adult is consenting, why not? Why do some people get to choose what is “right” in society? And don’t go on another slippery slope here and bring up child molesters and such. If an adults actions cause no harm to any other person then they should have to right to do what they want with whomever they want.

The only argument against civil rights advancement in any era has always been, and will always been that the newly recognized segment of society will somehow “pollute” the long standing status quo. People feel right now about same-sex marriage as people did at the though of blacks marrying whites… oh wait, that’s still going on today…

I’d love for anyone to propose an argument against civil rights that doesn’t make them sound like bigoted “traditionalists”.

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 21, 2009 7:59 PM
Comment #289568

ohreally - Sorry, I can’t make heads or tails of your response.

Mike - I just asked a question (that I don’t think you answered). The point of my question isn’t that we ban women from the military. The point is that we separate them from the men. Why do we that? Because in situations where people are made to live in close proximity to each other, people have an expectation of basic sexual security and privacy.

It’s not about not being able to control yourself. Most men and women will not willingly subject themselves to situations where they will be sexually vulnerable, even if it’s just as a matter of physical privacy.

I state this because you (and basically all other opponents of DADT) don’t address it and it’s at the core of the opposition to open homosexuality in the military.

If you disagree, then in your argument against what I say, also explain how it applies to men and women in the military. DADT doesn’t satisfy most people but it’s a reasonable compromise between the sides that want open homosexuality and the sides that don’t want it period.

Posted by: OttO at October 21, 2009 8:30 PM
Comment #289570

Answer the question why people should have to compromise on their identity. Your scenario makes it a mathematical equation. You do not take into account what it must be like to hide a very basic truth about yourself for fear of ridicule, torment, and being ostracized. Why is it so easy for some to marginalize other people who aren’t quite “the norm” so as to more easily “deal” with their existence?

You talk about basic human needs. Well what about when a group of people are talking about sex and they bring up passed experiences? Why should one group be expected to be honest while another must either lie, or not say anything?

Why do some people have to pretend to be “normal”? The thing is that unless you just do it, society will never “accept it” gradually. Hey, race relations are a million times better than they were during the black civil rights movement, and even now that we still have racism all around us, black people don’t have to feel ashamed of just being black. It happened, and it was painful, but it happened and we haven’t turned back yet (until now, some may say). Is this because race is one thing but sexuality is such a taboo that its that much more reprehensible a taboo subject to even recognize as being on the same playing field?

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 21, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #289571

I’ve made two very lengthy and thoughtful responses and both have been “redirected” to that void of “reserving the right to make sure” yadda yadda. Why can’t I just make a post? Most of the time they’re lost forever…

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 21, 2009 8:39 PM
Comment #289572

Redirected? Are you referring to an editing policy at Watchblog?

You can e-mail me with them if you’d like or post them at my site - I linked your article, it’s in the left side column. I’m just curious to read your responses. Thanks.

Posted by: OttO at October 21, 2009 9:22 PM
Comment #289574

>We are suppose to be focused on winning wars.
Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 21, 2009 07:36 PM

Craig,

I hate to remind you, but winning a war, and losing our national direction, is losing the war. We are not talking about some little insignificant thing here, we are talking about civil and human rights, the very foundation of this country. Without civil and human rights what difference does it make if we win or lose the war?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 21, 2009 9:58 PM
Comment #289575

MF, it’s very difficult to post in the blue column, which seems to have more triggers for rejecting posts than the other columns. I’ve sometimes posted identical posts in the green and red columns when they were rejected by the blue column. You can contact DRR about it if you want. I can’t find the email address right now.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 21, 2009 11:11 PM
Comment #289578

ohrealy & Mike,

drremer@gvtc.com

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 5:05 AM
Comment #289580

I emailed DR last night. I presume they are lost forever in the void so I’ll just have to accept that.

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 22, 2009 7:01 AM
Comment #289585

Type your pot-shots directly into the Comments Box, but for longer narratives, use your word processor, save it to file, and copy it to the Comments Box. That way, if the netherworld takes it, you can pull the file back up, delete the word ‘sex’ and recopy to the Comments Box. If you take as long as I do to write, this may save a lot of aggravation…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 10:23 AM
Comment #289586

Type your pot-shots directly into the Comments Box, but for longer narratives, use your word processor, save it to file, and copy it to the Comments Box. That way, if the netherworld takes it, you can pull the file back up, delete the word ‘s*x’ and recopy to the Comments Box. If you take as long as I do to write, this may save a lot of aggravation…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 10:24 AM
Comment #289587

PS:

If you get that stupid message, do not dispare…you can use the Browser Left Arrow to go back to your message, then highlight it, cut & paste…sometimes the second time around it will go through.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 10:28 AM
Comment #289590

Craig,
The point is we all have the same rights, under the law. Nobody has a legal advantage over anybody else. That’s why the civil rights movement is over. There is no group of adults in the country systemically discriminated against, there just isn’t.

Posted by: Dave at October 22, 2009 11:50 AM
Comment #289592

Otto,

“Because in situations where people are made to live in close proximity to each other, people have an expectation of basic sexual security and privacy.”

So do you assume that merely because a man is gay that they will violate that expectation?

There are already gays in the military under DADT.
Why would their behaviour change simply because DADT was rescinded?
It seems that you have bought into, and are all too willing to perpetuate a stereotype that actually exists in only a very small minority of gay men.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 22, 2009 1:25 PM
Comment #289593

If conservatives can point to the few gays who would take advantage, perhaps liberals should be able to point out that virtually every whacko bark-shooter out there in the hills crying ‘gubment is bad, get rid of gubment NOW’, and ‘Jews is taking over the world’, and ‘hang all darkies’, and ‘send all wetbacks back to Mexico’, is a Republican and because of that all Republicans should be banned from the military and from marriage.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 2:44 PM
Comment #289598

Marysdude,

Perhaps they think that next it will be lavender cammo and the gays will want to redecorate the place.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 22, 2009 6:12 PM
Comment #289608

Ha! Thanks for the humor Rocky, I can just see it now…’COVENENT SWORD & ARM OF THE LORD’…all in lavender and pink, at the entrance of the compound in the Idaho foothills.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 7:30 PM
Comment #289610

Rocky - please read what I posted. I didn’t say a solitary word criticizing behavior.

Would you criticize an woman in the army who expressed a view that men and women shouldn’t have co-ed sleeping and showering arrangements, even if she could be assured that she would never have sexual contact with these men?

Posted by: OttO at October 22, 2009 8:01 PM
Comment #289614

I guess that being patriotic enough to want to fight for your country should be reserved for males 5’11” to 6’4”, weighing no more than the minimum allowed under current guidelines, be of strong character and of high morals, etc, etc. Women should not apply because they are not males and are too short, and them ‘others’ should not apply because they are…well…other. Patriotism…restricted to the few, the proud, the homophobic?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 22, 2009 9:49 PM
Comment #289616

No no Marysdude, there’s practical reasons, legitimate reasons. It’s just “not the right time” to acknowledge a demonized segment of the population, wait till we’re not at war, or when the country isn’t in debt…

Time to accept that any argument against the legitimization of gay rights is only an expression of fear, hate, or ignorance. Don’t try and pull slippery slopes that we’ll have to let pedophiles do their thing legally, that’s a silly argument. Don’t try and present “situations” that might occur that could lead to an uncomfortable situation. Time to take responsibility and grow up. It’s time we move forward as a society even a little bit.


Posted by: Mike Falino at October 22, 2009 10:07 PM
Comment #289628

One step at a time, Mike, one step at a time…toddlers fall a lot before they can walk upright, and some stay in the knuckle-dragger stage longer than others.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 23, 2009 7:03 AM
Comment #289701

Mike,

I have attempted to post a response to Otto for nearly 2 days. I keep being told that someone (you or DRR) has activated a malicious content filter for first time posters. I also have seen a “objectionable content” filter even though, theoretically of course, there is no such content in my post, and no matter how I reword it nothing has changed.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 24, 2009 2:32 PM
Comment #289704

I just tried it again and got the same result.

I suppose this is the very definition of insanity.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 24, 2009 4:53 PM
Comment #289705

Yet these two posts went through.

Curiouser, and curiouser.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 24, 2009 4:54 PM
Comment #289717

Rocky,

When that stupid message comes up use the left browser arrow to get your entry back, then try submitting again, if it does not go through, do the same proceedure again. I don’t know why that the site has this problem, but you don’t have to lose all your words, because if worse comes to worse, you can highlight, copy to Word, get out of Watchblog, open it again and recopy into Comments. That almost always works.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2009 3:48 AM
Comment #289726

Marysdude,

Believe me, I did all of that and nothing worked. Realistically there is nothing life changing in what I wrote.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 25, 2009 10:27 AM
Comment #289737

Rocky,

Do not denigrate yourself…it may not be life changing, but it is important, if only because without your voice ours is weaker:)

Posted by: Marysdude at October 25, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #289741

Otto,

Being in the military requires human beings to be in close quarters with all types of other human beings, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.
As a point of fact, in the field, there is little or no privacy at all.

One doesn’t join the military for the privacy

At this time the America military is accepting people knowing full well they may give their lives in the line of duty.
Gays have stepped up to the plate and volunteered to serve their country, but they are being asked to keep their sexuality to themselves, and if there is a mere whisper that someone is gay, they are asked to leave.

The same is not being asked of “straight” men.

There is something very, very wrong about this equation, and I find that abhorrent.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 25, 2009 2:12 PM
Comment #289755

“I didn’t say a solitary word criticizing behavior.”

Perhaps, but such was implied several times with comments like;

“It’s not about not being able to control yourself. Most men and women will not willingly subject themselves to situations where they will be sexually vulnerable, even if it’s just as a matter of physical privacy.”

Being in the military requires human beings to be in close quarters with other human beings, regardless of race, sex, religion, or sexual preference.
As a point of fact, in the field, there is little or no privacy at all.

One doesn’t join the military for the privacy

At this time the America military is accepting people knowing full well they may give their lives in the line of duty.
Gays have stepped up to the plate and volunteered to serve their country, but they are being asked to keep their sexuality to themselves, and if there is a mere whisper that someone is gay, they are released.

The same is not being asked of “straight” men.

There is something very, very wrong about this equation, and I find that abhorrent.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 25, 2009 8:47 PM
Comment #289805

Sorry about the double post. I was trying to find a commbination that was compatible with the filters on this site.

The second is the intended post.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 26, 2009 8:55 PM
Comment #289848

Looks like it won’t be such a shock to the system!

Posted by: Mike Falino at October 27, 2009 12:05 PM
Comment #301140

Mental gender confusion is not the same thing as the color of one’s skin. Please do not mock the struggles of the slavery abolition and civil rights movements—it was actually “religionists” who fought the hardest for these movements.

Many people who disagree with you aren’t blind/ignorant, it’s just that a lot of Americans don’t buy into the “gay-gene” and honor traditional marriage like most other nations do.

Posted by: Baz at May 26, 2010 3:16 PM
Post a comment