The American Spectator : Obama's Last-Minute Gifts

Ret. Marine| 12.23.10 @ 6:38AM

Jeez, why did he have to wait til a lame-duck session to pass these traitorous activities? truth be told, if even half of the We the People were paying attention to this traitor ( especially since its that time of the year for the Christian festivities), obamas Bin Ly'n, he would have had that smug face of his ⁢*h slapped back to the reality that, a) he could have not got it done because everyone knew first it would not have been made under normal circumstances with adults leading, b) he could not have otherwise gotten a vote for moral-treason without the help of those who just got their arses handed back with the pink slips involved and c) they don't have to answer to anyone, with the exception of God for their treason against the American Public's safety, no one, I repeat no one sells out our National Defense so easily without being involved in a massive cover-up to get a piece of paper with a traitors signature on it. Its all in the plan to "fundamentally" transform our beloved Republic into some hodgepodge punked arse halfblackwhite sedition setup with no one at the helm to charge him. I am certain history will make notes in a manner of a traitors intentions. May his name be along side that of satan because he is the one responsible for the treason against this Christian Nation. What a punk we have as a so-called president, no he nothing short of a traitor and I'll be sure to tell the grandchildren who was responsible for their chains of slavery, hussein, 52% of the idiots that placed this illegal allien in his place, and those who though it was a-o.k. to steal their safety from them.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:13AM

Because none of you people would vote for a reasonable Republican interested in compromise. It was very cool strategy whereby Democrats capped one of the most productive Congressional sessions (I'm sure not in your eyes, tho) of the last 50 years. DADT was an anachronism that resisted the march of history toward more freedom and fulfillment of the Constitution's promise of protection of the rights of the minority and the Declaration of Independence's pronouncement of "All men are create equal .." That means ALL, not straight men, not white men , but ALL MEN. Congratz Mr. President, the American people are with you ! A 56% Approval rating bodes well for his re-election, don't you think?

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 9:23AM

and turn-around will be fair play in the future!

I already know several long-serving military folks who have dropped their papers.

10%! what a great, caring, competent guy!

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:53AM

Compromise to leftists is: give us all we want, compromise all you believe, and we will call it a good thing.

tj| 12.23.10 @ 10:59AM

What are you an idiot??? 56% approval rating my arsss...This country hates this manand his agenda for a banana republic. He is pure evil and sick and twisted to boot

WMC| 12.29.10 @ 4:56AM

AMEN....shows what nut jobs are. The EVIL runs throughout this ADMINISTRATION. And it's running for office again!!!! VOTE him out, free the AMERICAN'S!

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:08AM

Purpleguy, whoever and whatever you are, why are you here???

W| 12.23.10 @ 11:59AM

Purp is an unemployed left wing idealogue, he will spend all day posting his lefty opinons, and distorted facts. Ignore him. Waste of time to respond to left wing ideology.

JR| 12.24.10 @ 4:17PM

Aw, give the guy a break. Where else can we learn from a thinking (oops - feeling) sort of lefty?

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:10PM

I'm an ideologue? YOU are trying to shut off different opinions from being expressed, not me.

ironhorzmn| 12.27.10 @ 12:06PM

Waaah.

Puh-leeze. Save the martyr complex for someone who GAS.

Refusal to swallow your socialist talking points whole does NOT constitute 'shutting' anyone off.

If TAS wanted to 'shut you off', pal, you'd be gone. And there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it besides b*tch.

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:05PM

Well, Purpleguy certainly has a much a right to comment here as any of us. I'm not sure about his "reasonable Republican" comment. If he's referring to some of the Senatorial candidates that failed, well, how could they have prevented these lame duck bills (like DADT) from passing? The new Congress hasn't been seated yet. If he's referring to McCain, well, I voted (for Palin) against O. Purpleguy also celebrates freedom for "ALL MEN" but neglects to mention that believing Christians, Jews, (and yes) Muslims are now excluded. No doubt, however, he believes the new Homo/Ivy League/Unitarian military will be just swell. I, personally, would never have signed up for it (and I did not believe in Christ until I was 38 -- 16 years into my career in the USMC). Sexuality is extremely powerful, it's the defining aspect of the homosexual life, right? Yet for straight men it's supposed to be unimportant, we're supposed to ignore the revulsion and distrust of people dominated by a sexual agenda. In this article, Mr. Neumayr quite accurately describes a situation where straights "...are now expected to be as enthusiastic about brotherly lust as they had formerly been about brotherly love." Oh well, for the believing Christian this all just verifies the total blindness and depravity of man. This nation will pay in blood and many will pay for eternity (Gal 6:7-8).

Frisbee| 12.23.10 @ 1:16PM

Well said, Evanston2.

w| 12.23.10 @ 4:00PM

Frisbee and Evanston2 are the same as Purple and TedR

Frisbee| 12.23.10 @ 6:32PM

I just came back here to copy Evanston2's comment. "Sexuality is extremely powerful, it's the defining aspect of the homosexual life, right? Yet for straight men it's supposed to be unimportant, we're supposed to ignore the revulsion and distrust of people dominated by a sexual agenda."

This comment in particular really struck me, so I'm going to spread it around. It was as powerful as somehting else I heard recently (from NOM), that "The right to get married does NOT include the right to redefine marriage".

You're wrong, we are not the same person.

If Congress can repeal DADT, then they can repeal the repeal too! REPEAL the REPEAL!!

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 12:51PM

Actually, I am the same guy as "w." Or am I? Is this some sort of fiendish plot for Spectator domination?!? Or should "w" just lay off the eggnog?

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:04PM

You do know that 8 Republican Senators supported the repeal of DADT, don't you? Had they opposed it, it would not have passed.
Why are Christians, Jews and Muslims excluded? And, from what? That's nonsense unless you explain.
"sexuality is extremely powerful, it's the defining aspect of the homosexual life, right?Yet for straight men it's supposed to be unimportant, we're supposed to ignore the revulsion and distrust of people dominated by a sexual agenda. " - What man do you know that doesn't consider sex an integral part of his life? Gay or Straight, that doesn't matter, only the target of that lust.
"are now expected to be as enthusiastic about brotherly lust as they had formerly been about brotherly love." - that's just stupid. Accepting someone's coworker that may be different than you does not in any way you accept them as sexual partners... how sophomoric in it's view. Again - stupid.
If you are a Christian, what happened to "love the sinner"? If you do believe gays are sinners, are you not supposed to reach out to them, help them, comfort them? I find it quite interesting that you use Christianity as a shield for your bigoted views, when your religious teachings should have informed you "not to judge, lest ye be judged"... does that ring a bell?
Moreover, what makes you think that having first accepted blacks, then women and now gays in the military means the end to military service? That's ridiculous ... sure there may be some homophobes in service, but the younger generation are already tolerant of gays, so the issue is with those that will die in the next 20 years, and will cleanse the bigotry from the population, so let it be written, so let it be done.

Abe| 12.24.10 @ 12:21AM

Hey, Purpleface,

You sir, are an idiot!!! You watch what's going to happen to the US Army as a result of this ruling. Desruction from within!

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:48PM

Purpleface? that's new ...

victor| 12.24.10 @ 2:53AM

PurpleGayGuy:
"If you do believe gays are sinners, are you not supposed to reach out to them, help them, comfort them?"

Here's what happens when we do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK16xxjzXyI

Here's what happens when we try to witness to muslims:
http://www.clickondetroit.com/.....etail.html

When sharia law takes effect in the United States, you and your gay friends will not be able to say anything publicly because you will be put to death according to the koran.

All we want to do is to tell you of the Eternal Salvation made possible by accepting Christ as your saviour, but you won't even listen to us.

"not to judge, lest ye be judged"

Another verse that you gays take out of context and mangle.

This verse says that we are to judge righteously and
honestly. This does not disallow the right of making moral and spiritual judgments, but forbids hostility and bitterness in finding fault with others.

If you want to quote Scripture, perhaps you need to read the Bible first.

And understand what it is you are quoting.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 1:15PM

First off, I am welcomed by Christ as my savior and it has nothing to do with you, nor can you change it.
Since I do read the Bible, I'll offer this:
First Look here: Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mat 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Mat 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. )
We are exhorted to make sure we are right with God before judging anything. This is about removing the beam from your own eye first. Then we can make sound and righteous judgments.We are to judge, but judge carefully and righteously. we must always remember, there is a soul at stake. We cannot judge in a hypocritical manner and be right with God.
Then, Look at John 7:24. There, Jesus tells us to judge, but to do so righteously. Righteously means to use the Truth of the Word to discern sins and not by appearances only. In 1Cor. 6:2-3 Jesus authorizes us to judge. Judge we must else we could not discern good from bad, proper from improper, righteousness from evil. But judge behavior, not the individual; the deed not the doer; the choice not the chooser. The individual/doer/chooser is accountable for his/her deed/choice, but judge the deed/choice in your judgment. Jesus could see a king in a shepherd boy. And an Apostle in a murderer. So while we must judge one's behavior we must we try to nurture the goodness in an individual: to separate the deed from the doer.

So, unless you are a witness to behavior, you dare not judge. You are NOT to judge the sinner at all, but only the sin, as I said in my own words. You don't witness the sin, you cannot judge, according to the Bible.
Using terms like "you gays" sounds to me like your judging the person, not the behavior, now aren't you? In any case, unless you are well theologically grounded, you are stepping on shaky ground when you throw judgements of other around like snowflakes, and even the Bible warns you about being so cavalier with another's soul.
The pastor in that Youtube obviously is not getting the message that when a permit is issued for a block party, a demonstration or whatever, public areas are designated private for the event. I saw nothing outrageous, except he and his group were determined to do something toward interfering with the event.
I'm surprised you brought Sharia law into this, since I'm positive no one on here would ever condone Sharia law and it is probably unconstitutional anyway ... but that's another discussion.

victor| 12.24.10 @ 2:23PM

Better start practicing what you preach, then, PurpleGuy.
You may read the Bible, but you neither follow it nor understand it.
Witness your use of Old Testament laws to discredit Christians, above.
The ONLY thing you EVER do here is lie about others and falsely accuse.
Constantly!
So I'm actually witnessing your behavior and I'm judging you right now: You're a hypocrite.

Christ doesn't welcome liars, so when are you going to quit?

And why are you so vigorously defending the sin of Homosexuality?

Do YOU tell these sinners that they will be going to Hell unless they repent of their sin?

Rom 1:27 & 32
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

"Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Do you tell ANY sinners what their fate will be unless they repent or are you friends with the World, eh?

And you brought up muslims in the first place, which is why I mentioned it.

And they do want to impose sharia law upon us "infidels".

Will you submit to them or will you defy them?

Jam 4:4 "Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship withthe world is enmity with God?
Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 2:58PM

Wow - talk about judging someone! " You may read the Bible, but you neither follow it nor understand it."
What could you possibly know of me, other than some words uttered here? Perhaps not your understanding of the Bible - and that's okay - I have just as much right to interpret what I read as you do.
"Witness your use of Old Testament laws to discredit Christians, above." - Where am I discrediting Christians? That's baloney.

"Christ doesn't welcome liars, so when are you going to quit?" - au contraire, my Bible ignorant one, yes, he does, in fact, it is exactly the sinner he welcomes to him. It is the stray lamb he wants to bring back into the fold.

By your reckoning, anyone who is a sinner is doomed. So let me ask - are you without sin? Have you never broken even so much as one of the Ten Commandments, let alone the multitude of sins described in the Bible? Do you really believe our Heavenly Father has such a limit on his forgiveness, that one transgression will doom you? Remember, Christ died for all our sins, not just some selective top 10 or something.
And, yes, actually, I will try to help anyone - but I don't preach at them, no. Offer help, yes, respond to a plea for help, yes. But, preach, no.
Funny how you know what all Muslims want and what all gay people are like - I suspect you know what all black people think and what all women want. Unfortunately you come across as some sanctimonious windbag critical of anyone not in line with your special views.
I defend the black cause for equality - and y'all think I'm black, I defend the gays' cause for equality, and you think I'm gay, I defend women's rights and then you think I'm a woman. If I stand up for Martian's rights, are you going to think I'm a Martian too? Intolerance has many brethren, and they all need re-education. I shouldn't have to tell a pious person that.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 2:24PM

Purpleguy, not a bad Biblical discussion, not bad at all. But for starters, if someone says that their life is habitually sinful per the Bible, then I need not see it. For example, if I say that I cheat on my wife all the time, this can be judged by the Christian. Further, the way you use Bible snippets is artful but incomplete. You quote Matt 7 but stop at verse 5. Why not deal with 6? Perhaps because it requires us to judge who is a pig? Luke 6:37-45 lays it all out plainly. We can judge who "is" a pig by his/her fruit. That may change, God may save, and you are definitely right that the Bible condemns those who presume to sit in God's final judgment seat.
Many people use Bible snippet-ology to conclude that when Jesus says that we should not judge, it means he nullified Old Testament moral law. But Jesus told us that He came to fulfill the law. Go back to Matthew and look at 5:18-20. Our Lord clearly condemns those who relax the moral law (which He referred to regarding divorce, for example) and also says that our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. The law convicts us of sin and leads us to Christ, because we all fall short. It is His righteousness, imputed to us, that clothes us in His sinless white robes during the Judgment.
In sum, the Bible is chock full of moral behavioral judgments. God killed all but 1 family in such a judgement. God commanded the Israelites to wipe out the inhabitants of the Promised Land in such a judgment. If you believe that Christ is God, and note that He talked about hell more than anyone else in Scripture, and that he came to save us (from what?), and that we are supposed to spread the Good News (then what is the bad news?), then you need to deal with evil. Because God showed us how much He hates evil by torturing Christ to death on the cross and even cutting him off (darkness, cry of "Why hast thou forsaken me?") in our place. Bottom line: we are not to approve of evil.
Do you wish to decide what is good and evil for yourself: isn't this what the Fall in the garden was about? Isn't this condemned in Judges 17&21; ("every man did what was right in his own eyes")? Let's return to your initial text, a starting snippet from the sermon on the mount. But let's finish the sermon where it ends, particularly Matt 7:21-23 but continue on to the end if you wish. Are you a worker of lawlessness? Or are you building on a firm foundation? When you describe the institutional and legal protection of what the Bible calls evil as "a triumph" then who are you? Just another guy who reads the Bible to judge others, but puts it aside when what it says is inconvenient?

Danny| 12.29.10 @ 10:00AM

Purple Guy: Do you really believe the Bible? Read the first chapter of Romans and find out how God feels about homosexuality. None of this has anything to do with how WE feel, it is how God feels that counts. And God, not me or any of these other people, is the One who condemns this abominable practice. It doesn't really matter what you think or what I think or what any of these people think, the only thing that matters is what God thinks.

Wayne | 12.25.10 @ 2:51PM

And Purpleguy, homosexual soldiers are going to have sexual partners all around them. In the barracks, in the tents, in the showers, in the field. Not so the heterosexual soldiers. Instead they are going to have to deal with the gay sex around them, the flirting, and the grab assing, and in some cases the rape. This is the new Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:04PM

That's just stupid. It's against the UCMJ and illegal for soldiers to engage such. As the majority, straight men have nothing to fear. Not so straight women around straight men - yet, that is still illegal vis a vis the UCMJ. Gay men my be subjected to harassment, however, and that's where I suspect the problems may come. Gay men are no threat to straight men's sexuality - how dumb.

Evanston2| 12.26.10 @ 11:58PM

"It's against the UCMJ and illegal for soldiers to engage such." Really? Even in the USMC, if you are of equal rank to another Marine then you can date. The other services are even less restrictive. Plus, homosexuals are adept (you may well argue, of necessity) at successfully having many liaisons without detection. Are you saying that homosexuals will not be influenced by their affinity to their network of partners? That this will not manifest itself in favoritism toward homosexuals and the opposite toward straights? And if you are worried about explicitly gay men being subject to harassment, why create the problem in the first place by institutionally "outing" them? Finally, what do you mean when you say "no threat to straight men's sexuality?" Who are you to know what 'threatens' us, repulses us? Your new policy is based upon the power of sexuality in your life, but denies it in the lives of heterosexuals. You conclude with the right remark: "how dumb."

ironhorzmn| 12.27.10 @ 12:16PM

'Harassment'= attempted legitimate attempts at military discipline, expressed disapproval, evident revulsion, basically anything the gay servicemember and his ACLU big brothers say it is.

Liberals intend to paralyze the military. Obama and Democrats have just given them all the tools they'll need.

I was in the military since before Tailhook. I saw the careers of heroes and honorable men sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and its high priestesses at DACOWITS.

Men are now routinely hammered into fearful silence by mandatory sensitivity training while (some) women commit unlawful and insubordinate acts with impunity.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 9:48AM

nahhh....go back and review his posts. he couldn't structure a complete argument if is life depended upon it!

same o...same o: stats randomly pulled from the grab bag; off the cuff emotionalisms; confusion over means and ends; dishonesty about ends.

John2| 12.23.10 @ 2:40PM

Purpleguy is a troll, well known at AT.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:07PM

Is Purple really a "troll?" He makes arguments (with which I disagree strongly) where he at least attempts to present facts and reasoned conclusions, not the usual insult-and-run BS we see from trolls. In fact, I am suspicious of some of the responses to Purple. Some look like HuffPo-ites pretending to be conservatives, just bluster and insult. The bottom line is that readers can figure out who a troll is by what he/she says, they don't need your special warning.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:07PM

Is Purple really a "troll?" He makes arguments (with which I disagree strongly) where he at least attempts to present facts and reasoned conclusions, not the usual insult-and-run BS we see from trolls. In fact, I am suspicious of some of the responses to Purple. Some look like HuffPo-ites pretending to be conservatives, just bluster and insult. The bottom line is that readers can figure out who a troll is by what he/she says, they don't need your special warning.

Emjayem| 12.23.10 @ 1:09PM

56%? What poll are you citing? More like 40% if that. Having spent 20+ years in the military, I can say that this "president" weakend national defense. History of a positive note will not be on his side.

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 2:22PM

you're right. but you know...what the administration revealed in Woodward's book was a lot more damaging. more so than Wikileaks.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:06PM

Gallup poll of the impact of the lame duck session on the American people. Especially noteworthy because independents grew dramatically toward Obama - not you people, but he doesn't need your votes.

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 7:45AM

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

For the first time in ten months, the number who Strongly Disapprove of the president has remained below the 40% level for four straight days"

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 1:17PM

Pick your poll, they're a dime a dozen, but Rasmussen? Now, come on .. that's hardly an independent voice. RealClearPolitics always has a slant to the right...

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 2:26PM

Rasmussen was accurate again this year, with the only major miss its projection that Sharron Angle would defeat Harry Reid in Nevada by four points. (Reid won by five points.)

RCV| 12.26.10 @ 5:27PM

Actually, although Rasmussen was quite good in 2008, Nate Silver's post -election analysis of all the pollsters showed consistent pro-Republican errors in Rasmussen's 2010 analyses. It may be the result of too heavy reliance on fixed- line versus mobile phones in their polling.

Frisbee| 12.23.10 @ 1:15PM

"ALL men"? Are you utterly stupid? What about crippled men? Deaf men? Fat men? Blind men?

You libs are such complete lying stupid idiots that I just can't stand it anymore!!!! Your lies sound good only to morons.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:09PM

You don't know what 'ALL MEN' means, and you call me stupid? Really? Really? The fact that this article focused on DADT is why I focused on straight vs gay. Now, in my book ALL MEN are either straight or gay. You know any other types? There are blond men, tall men, old men, short men, sick men, disabled men, all kinds of men - but they comprise ALL MEN - get it now, ditz?

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:06AM

So, in your ALL INCLUSIVE LIBERAL book ALL MEN are either straight or gay? Really? ALL MEN comprises bi and/or transgendered men also. Calling you STUPID would be a compliment...get it, jackass?

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:33PM

No it does not mean 'ALL MEN', but rather ALL MEN WHO WANT TO ACT, TALK, DRESS, LOOK, ETC ..........LIKE WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:12PM

You're arguing with the Declaration of Independence? Really? Where do you think the "All men are created equal ... " phrase comes from?
I got news for you, in a gay relationship one man is the pitcher and one is the catcher - and they change off, muscular, straight-acting men ... so who's the woman, brainiac?

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 9:51AM

yawn......equivocating on equality.

same o...same o.

Wayne | 12.25.10 @ 2:53PM

I have news for you. That is not sex. It is more akin to mutual masturbation.

MikeD| 12.23.10 @ 11:22PM

We tire of your antics. If you actually had a bit of intelligence you might wonder why obama and his thugs had to resort to a lame duck session to pass what they should have subjected to public debate for two years. But, THEY CAN'T BECAUSE NOBODY WANTS THEIR CRAP! Or, better yet, apply the 'What would the media do if the Republicans tried it" case. I could just see George Bush hiding all his records. The media wing of the demoncrap party, under dan blather, had to fabricate records because they didn't like the truth. There is no way that you, or any of your demented buddies on the left can defend any of the illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional tactics that pelosi and reid used to jam bills through that the American people DID NOT WANT. Then, to do more of the same after a total repudiation by the electorate is the most arrogant act in our history. People have been hung for less.

Reid, pelosi, obama should be in jail, not in office. In a less law abiding country they'd have been removed and lined up against a wall for treason. I wonder just how long the American people will put up with democrats' complete disregard for the law and morality?

If their policies were so good and highly popular, why do they have to sneak them through in the middle of the night? Or late on Saturdays? These people have absolutely no redeeming value. I wonder if they could be nominated for retroactive abortion? After all, they seem to love abortion so much; maybe they need a taste of it...

KansasGirl| 12.23.10 @ 11:31PM

Look what the homosexual priests have done to the Catholic Church. Can't imagine what the armed services will look like in 15 or 20 years. sigh

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 12:54PM

Good example, though I doubt any of us know how far back the unrepentant depravity of the Roman priesthood started.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:03PM

Wow, unbelievably naiive - that is just plain stupid? Equating pedophilia with being gay?
You're comparing adult men serving with other adult men in the military as coequals to adult priests who manipulate and subjugate young innocent boys for their pleasure? Really?
In the case of DADT repeal it's a call for equality and in the other case of pedophilic priests it's a statutory crime of sexual predation.

Now, just how many young, tough, strong adult straight men who are trained to fight, armed to the teeth with weapons, do you think who are going to fall victim to the oh so powerfully persuasive gay man ? (sarcasm is all you deserve, in your ignorance). Give it a rest - gay men already serve in the Armed Forces, it's not news to those in the military, just the dumbkopfs that never served.

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:27AM

Spoken like the dumpkopf you are.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:13PM

So you're another one against equality for all... Good way to support the Founders, the Constitution and the American Dream... do America a favor and leave.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 12:04AM

Hey Purple, you're denying "equality to all" to pedophiles, aren't you? Regarding the Roman church, neither of us know for sure but covering up homosexual sin in the priesthood could have laid the groundwork for covering up for pedophiles (moving them around when detected, possibly opening up the homosexuals to blackmail by the pedophiles, etc.). We could also use some education: at what age, exactly, is the line of demarcation between homosexuality and pederasty?

WMC| 12.29.10 @ 5:22AM

The Founders, The Constitution had no idea what the word gay or homosexual was when they gave their speech. And I don't think this is or was part of the American dream. I personally don't give a s*it what you like as a play toy or what you hhave sex with (KEEEP THE S*IT TO YOURSELF) and your sick opinons. And as for do America a favor and leave? Go look in the mirror and see what planet you really came from because they are looking for you. American you are not!

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 7:49AM

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

For the first time in ten months, the number who Strongly Disapprove of the president has remained below the 40% level for four straight days"

JCfromDC| 12.24.10 @ 10:09AM

And just WHERE, or when, did this 56% "approval" rating come about? 2008? He probably won't even get re-nominated at this rate

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 10:37AM

For you to still hold fast to your Liber-ulism and still spout your Liber-ul tripe in the face of the recent elections and the latest Census shows it is you who are the anachronism.

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 1:34PM

I can't believe people are still around that think like you.. under your Messiah - we're tanking as a Country. 17% Un-underemployment? 16% Black, 14% Hispanic, 21% youth and 40% Black youth. Trillions more in debt, Your Blue States and Cities collapsing under the weight of your stupid Socialist ideas and still spout this utter - refuted nonsense. Here's some advice for you slick.. Get a life and pull your head out of that orifice that's called your backside.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 3:21PM

And, who told you that 8 years of Republican "hands off the wheel" was going to be corrected quickly? What Bush had wrought, Obama is mending ...

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:31AM

Clinton wrought DADT, not Bush, KRAUTKOPF.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:15PM

I guess you missed the list from Redstateboy that he ascribes to Obama .. I wasn't talking DADT in response to him, idiotboy.

WMC| 12.29.10 @ 5:31AM

You are wrong! In those 8 yrs of Bush...4 of those years were controlled by the wack jobs that just got voted out and the thing Bush did not do was VETO anything! The DEM'S hid behind closed doors force crap on both sides to get what they wanted and did not care what the American people wanted or thought when they did this!! OB could not mend his way out of a paper bag, he did nothing for IL except vote present which actually shows today in the White House. He's too busy spending the tax payers money on all the vacations he thinks his family has earned at the cost to the tax payers and that's why he waits 9 days to respond to anything major that happens to the American people. But he will put his foot where his mouth his on things that happens he knows nothing about..ETC..BEER SUMMIT..before he knew the facts same with IL.

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 2:36PM

If ya look at the picture attached to this article.. doesn't it look like a bunch of Vultures standing over Hussein waiting for a meal.. Too bad it's the carcass of United States of America they're about to feed on!

IzeHavitt| 12.24.10 @ 11:52PM

Purpleguy, The writers of the Constitution were not perfect men. They did the best they knew how. However, because they didn't have available to them the accurate knowledge of the Word of God that we have today, they made some mistakes.However, the Constitutional Convention nevertheless produced a document that, in terms of civil government, is about as close to holy writ as there ever has been. Thereto, one George Washington remarked about the risk being taken, saying that "Only a righteous people could keep this constitution." So it is that the devil has worked overtime to distort it's true meaning. And he has succeeded greatly in the last 50 years or so.. Ok, Purp, we may acknowledge your point: under the constitution, the so-called gays may have a right to be gay, mayhaps even in the military. However- and this is a point totally lost upon you liberals- they have an even greater responsibility to suppress their lusts, for the good of all concerned; especially the units they serve in.To not do so is selfishness. Because, in their heart of hearts, they know what they are doing is wrong. No, none of you are more free today. You are a slave to your lusts. And you know it.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:31PM

Your point is not lost on me, but you are being narrow minded in your definition of who bears responsibility. I'll say this - you show me 1 gay man that has committed "lust" and I'll show you 5 straight men that have done the same. Remember, according to Matthew 5:28, for only one scripture warning - "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." - So unless you believe we are all d* to H* for lustful thoughts and therefore committing adultery, not just the deeds, gay men are no different, and are therefore imperfect, as are we all.
I challenge any real man to ever say he has never lusted after a woman, and has "suppressed his lusts" as you say. The simple thought of lust is the sin, and, as I said, no man has been free of that sin - So, again, are we all d* to H* because we have lusted? I don't think Our Heavenly Father is that narrow and unforgiving, do you? I mean, He made us with all our imperfections - why would He do that, if He meant to punish us for those very imperfections? He wants us to accept Him and love Him, and if we do, He forgives our sins through Jesus Christ, Our Savior. God's grace is unlimited.

wodiej| 12.25.10 @ 7:35AM

LMAO....56% approval rating....where did you pull that one from? LOL....

Checkthefacts| 12.25.10 @ 3:50PM

Check your facts his DISAPPROVAL level is close to 56%. If he gets re-elected it will be through fraud.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....cking_poll

Joyce| 12.27.10 @ 12:54PM

Hey, Thanks for clearing that up for that purple guy! and me. Guess he read it wrong or, saw what he wanted to see?

Joyce| 12.27.10 @ 12:52PM

Where did you get this info? I think you are waaaayyy wrong!

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 1:19PM

A 56% approval rating?? Where was this poll taken> Watts perhaps..

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 1:33PM

Purpleguy: (or is it blackguy?)

Your buddy Obama is as queer as a four dollar bill. You probably don't believe that, so simply 'google' Larry Sinclair/Obama and 'read all about it'.. Be sure to have your barf bag at the ready.

Semper Fi

Willy| 1.3.11 @ 5:56PM

Purpleguy, you are out of your element with an argument this lame. What's next? Pedophiles meeting at the NCO Club? Perhaps soldiers will gain the right to carry sheep into battle. Anyone who has been to war will tell you that they served with men of questionable gender preferences. The difference is giving it official sanction. As a vet, this smacks to me of a policy choice made by graduates of the same elite schools that refused to allow ROTC on campus.

Eric Cartman| 12.23.10 @ 12:00PM

I'm sick of Christmas, and I hate those religious Christmas carols.

All I like is "Jingle Bell Rock." Now that's a jumpty tune gets my fingers to snapping.

Ordered me a Hoveround and the commercial said Medicare would pay for it. Lyers!

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:09PM

Don't forget, Poopsykins, you also hate hippies and gingers!

Flatdog| 12.23.10 @ 2:14PM

Right on, Marine! In the Army outfit I was in back in the '70s, any queer would have got fragged at the first opportunity. Fortunately, we either didn't have any, or they had a very strong sense of self-preservation.

Certainly that crap President of yours has no right to offer opinions, having never even been a Goddamned boy scout, let alone a warrior.

"Obama declared ... that people will look back and wonder why homosexuality in the military was a "source of controversy in the first place."

Tell it to the Marines, O'Barmy!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:13PM

As if a tough man cannot be a Gay and a Marine... bigot.

MikeD| 12.23.10 @ 11:23PM

Your ballet slippers and thong are showing purpleguy. Shouldn't you be out in the sandbox; or maybe in the closet with your buds?

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 3:21PM

Are you a Christian?

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 10:05AM

As if a majority, an overwhelming majority, the overwhelming straight majority in our military should have to accept a minority, a miniscule minority, the miniscule fag/queer minority with a many times over higher AIDS/HIV/STD infection rate...jackass.

Wayne | 12.25.10 @ 2:54PM

And rape young 18 and 19 year old marines.

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:41AM

In the Army boot-camp platoon I was in back in 1964 two fags/queers wouldn't keep their eyes/hands to themselves, until about ten of us finally gave them a good scrubbing down with industrial-strength lava soap and scrub brushes. Thankfully, for us and them, they were discharged within a week.

Wayne | 12.25.10 @ 2:56PM

When I was in the Army in 1970, several drill sergeants raped guys from my company.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:32PM

If you had any brains, you would know that rape is not a sexual act, it is an act of force, brutality and power. Power over the powerless one. As you say, "several drill sergeants" - that's not sex, that's an act of control.

Loyola Studies| 12.23.10 @ 5:36PM

The Evil in the minds of most of the posters here is frightening. There are some sociopaths reading and responding to the AmSpec posts. Sociopaths and psychopaths!

It should chill the blood of any moral, respectable man or woman to read this blog.

The Right-Wing Republicans are supreme when it comes to hating. Hate. Hate. Hate is expressed over and over by the most repugnant posters.

And to top it all off, you hate in the name of Christ!

Don't believe me? Start at top and read to bottom of this thread, and you will read the twisted thoughts coming from vicious, malevolent minds.

b0nes| 12.23.10 @ 6:46PM

If I'm not mistaken wasn't it God that said that if two men lay together it shall be an abomination unto the Lord.
Also are you saying the Left does not hate!
After the last two years it is quite obvious the Left hates everything the Right holds dear, like morals.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:15PM

Yes, and you should be put to death if you eat shellfish, and you are to share you wife with your guest, and, and, and ... the list goes on and on of things we do not follow that the Bible expects of us... So? Just a kinard you pull out to give your case credibility using the Bible against those you hate. Oh, and didn't the Bible say "love thy neighbor"? I don't remember it saying "love thy neighbor, except if they're gay" .. putz.

victor| 12.24.10 @ 3:06AM

PurpleGoy:
"Yes, and you should be put to death if you eat shellfish,"

That is an Old testament dietary law.
That was put to rest in Acts 10:10-15:
"And he became hungry and desired something to eat; but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance
and saw the heaven opened, and something descending, like a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth.
In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.
And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."
But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common."

You really need to read the Bible if you are going to quote Scripture.
There is no Death Penalty for eating Old Testament foods you know. Or do you?

I once called a liberal talk show host who was trying to peddle the same dead fish you are and he had no idea what he was talking about, but he sure did after I got through with him.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 3:25PM

Well, good for you.... I don't profess to be a theologian, but it does rankle how many on here hide behind Bible theology to cover their bigotry and hatred, as if the Bible gives them permission to do so. In my small way, I try to show them the error of their ways - apparently, poorly, but I do try.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 9:52AM

ummm...the word is canard.

attend a public school...did ya?

JCfromDC| 12.24.10 @ 10:16AM

Ya beat me to it! "Canard" it is! I always love to catch people who can't spell crap, or use "their", "there" and "they're", or "hear" and "here", or "vain" and "vein", "bare" and "bear", interchangeably, and so on... definitely public school!

Alan Brooks| 12.24.10 @ 5:20PM

Purplecrap, now you quote the Bible, asshole? You liberal turds are always ready to cover the Virgin Mary with feces or dip Christ in urine but when it suits your agenda you quote the same Scriptures you would otherwise wipe you sinful ass with. Fucking liberals! You deserve to be shot through the butt and left to die surrounded by hyenas

uburoisc| 12.23.10 @ 10:03PM

I'm not a Christian, and I can hate all I want. I hate your sissy, effete, hand-wringing, phony, God and all it represents; what you call morality I call an uncritical, cowardly posturing only fit for dinner parties at the college circuit. Your evil is contingent, ineffectual and of no weight whatsoever and anything vaguely masculine would probably chill your enervated blood.

Sincerely,

American Psycho

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:16PM

Loyola Studies, who talked about hell more than any other person in the Bible? Answer: Jesus. If Jesus is a savior and the Gospel is good news, what is He saving us from and what is the bad news? Read the Bible. God killed all but 1 family (Noah's) in judgment. God let all the Israelites (even after several "cullings") die in the wilderness but 2: Jacob and Caleb, warriors, who got to enter the Promised Land. If your standard of proper behavior is 'Be Nice' and you hate whatever YOU define as 'Hate' then fine, do so, but leave Christ out of it. And while I agree that many of these 'conservative' comments are over the top, they are at least honest. Homosexuality is insidiously evil, but its easy to say that God approves of it when you make yourself God.

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 10:27AM

The Evil in the mind of the one who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office of the White House is what's frightening. There sits not only the poster child for clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder but also the protegee of Karl Marx, Reverend Jeramiah Wright, Saul Alinski and Cloward & Plevin.

PrettyInPastels| 12.23.10 @ 7:09PM

Surely are a lot of evil old men on this site. I'd like to kick you all in the balls with my spike heels.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:17PM

No worries, they'll all be dead soon enough and take their hate, hypocrisy and bigotry with them.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 9:57AM

but not before you!...consumed/overwhelmed as you obviously are by your own hatreds.

dude...you are a living self caricature! an object of amusement for so many. I encourage you...nay implore you...to keep posting. the comedic joy you bring helps balance the unemployment stress and frustration the apostles of virtue you elected create. now...I can't aver the same for South Koreans about to be nuked while this administration sleeps at the wheel....but what the heck...we can all busy ourselves rewriting the UCMJ to conform to current orthodoxy!!!

love ya purple!....merry Xmas!!!

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:07PM

I don't hate anyone pal. I even hold prayers for all of you that are so wrapped in your own self- centeredness you can't find it in your heart to reach out to those less fortunate or different than you. Try to understand how it would feel to be humiliated and scoffed at, just for being who you are.
But You're rhetoric IS filled with a lot of hate and degrading remarks. Practice what you preach, will ya pal?

Yep Merry Christmas To All.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:02PM

Like Purpleguy says, we'll all be dead soon. Then you and your ilk can don the uniform and do the fighting. Good luck with that.

Al| 12.23.10 @ 8:12PM

Ret. Marine
As a proud military vet, a gay predator tried to molest me while I was sleeping in the AF. This is true. Last time I looked, molestation is a crime. I hope that the oncoming Rep. Congress can do something to stem the tide.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:19PM

Oh, as if harassment of female military members by straight military members doesn't happen all the time? I presume they are punished for breaking military protocols and so would gay "predators". Were you the prey then, the poor little victim who couldn't defend himself against he big, bad gay boy?

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 8:09AM

Oh, was Purpleguy "the big bad gay boy" ?

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:00AM

you're missing the point! get his holiness' logic?

what? someone violated the law? well...what about others who broke the same law? the problem with that sort of logic....well...one of the problems...is that it can come back to haunt the person who espouses it.... :-) ......

Jimbobogie| 12.23.10 @ 8:37PM

A couple of things that I'm observing as a non-resident of the US:

1. Why the delay to the aid for the First Responders? Why was it cut and what would happen if, God forbid they were needed again and decided to stage their own filibuster? These men and women have been dying for months and months and needed the money-any money- last year!
2. It seems that if the internal arguing and name-calling is this bad on the conservative side of the political spectrum, then what hope can there be for any legislation to get through the next session of Congress? If a Conservative Congress is determined to do nothing more than stall every bit of legislation from now till the next election, doncha think that “The Other Side” will be able to use that to their advantage?

...just wondering...

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:21PM

Yes, expectations are high and results must be delivered.. Good luck with that Cons.
Personally, I hope they implement ALL the recommendations coming out of the Deficit Commission - Watch both sides howl - but it will be best for America and our future.

victor| 12.24.10 @ 3:19AM

". Why the delay to the aid for the First Responders? Why was it cut
Yes, expectations are high and results must be delivered.. "

They were already given 7 Billion Dollars several years ago.

What happened to that money?

And what happened to the money that was given them by their civil service and union pensions and medical benefits, eh?

And half of this money, 4 Billion or so, was going to
slip and fall lawyers for doing nothing.

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 10:47AM

victor... you facts and logic are lost on someone the likes of purpledude... facts and logic presented to a Liber-ul are akin to Dracula being shown a Crucifix.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:10PM

So you place a time limit on caring for those that serve and protect you ? Do you feel the same about Military Veterans? Active Duty Military? Police? Firemen? Paramedics? How selfish can you be?

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:01AM

like you even have a clue what is "best for America"

bahahahahaha

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:11PM

Wow - and you have any other solutions oh brilliant one? Do you even know what the Deficit Commissions recommendations were - or didn't Rush Loudmouth tell you?

Purplegay| 12.24.10 @ 8:41PM

Ya big thilly, i think Rush iz kinda cute. Grrrr, grizzly bear love me!

Alan Brooks| 12.24.10 @ 5:26PM

Purplegay, you aren't coming? How can one write crap and get fucked at the same time?

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:36PM

Whoever you are, you need to be removed from AS, as a filthy pornographic promoter - you're not Alan Brooks.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.25.10 @ 8:43AM

This is what you get, when you elect a guy who started his Political Career in the Living room of two DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. In the Living Room of two people who KILLED Police Officers, BLEW UP Recruiting Stations, and BOMBED the Pentagon. A Commander In Chief who HATES the Military.
Do these Girl/Men bunk with the Real Men? Do the Girl/Men shower with the Real Men? How is that any different than the Real Men bunking and showering with the Real Women?
Do the Girl/Men get to wear Makeup on Duty, like the Real Women? Do they get to wear Women's Clothes when they're NOT on Duty? Can they wear Dresses to the Enlisted Man's Club? Will they be "Making out" at the Enlisted Man's Club.
The DOMESTIC ENEMY in the White House doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency. He's Shut Down our means to retrieve OUR OWN sources of Energy. He doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency. He will drive more and more Industry from our shores with his Cap and Trade Regulations. With his Soviet Style Health Care System. With his CARD CHECK Legislation for his Union Brown Shirts. He doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency.
There will be confrontations, as the Real Men's sensibilities are accosted by the Gay Men's Proclivities. There WILL be a push back. There WILL be Violence. And this guy will come down HARD on the REAL MEN. On the WARRIORS who keep this Country SAFE. And there will be a push back.
Retention Rates will fall off the cliff. Enlistments by the REAL MEN will fall off the cliff. And the GAYS will swarm to the Recruiter's office like it was a Bath House in Provincetown. Our Military cohesiveness will be DESTROYED. But, then, that has ALWAYS been the plan.
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.
It's like the nose on your face.
It's Christmas morning. I believe in the GOODNESS and the HOPE that CHRIST brings.
Only a fool would discount the other side of the coin.
There is Evil all over this world. WHO would, by his Words and deeds, do everything in his power, to WEAKEN the only Country that stands against it?
Isn't it obvious?

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:51PM

Anyone have visions of Chicken Little after reading this rant? Ha! Armageddon is at hand because there is a modicum of acceptance of gay people as people. OMG - run for the hills...

ldibb| 12.29.10 @ 11:34AM

AMEN!

inge| 12.23.10 @ 6:51AM

As polls are most of the times being manipulated to achieve desired outcome; so was the survey of our Armed Forces tweaked, and manilpulated, not to mention outcome of survey reported with bias to favor 'allowing gays' into the military.
Disgarded were the opinion of our Armed Forces who overwelmingly did not agree with 'the open homosexuality' within their ranks.
This whole issue was nothing but a sham, and I blame not only Gates, Mullen, and Obama, but also those who never rerspected our Armed Froces to begin with.

Just as the Chain of Command (Casey), and the rest of them felt, that the killing of 13 military personnel was NOT the reason of his 'Soldier of allah' radical jihadist ideology by M Hassan, so are they now denying that nobody ever 'lived a lie', about their sexual preferance.
Our military is voluntary, and those who continue to lie, that homosexuals are forced to 'live a lie' due to DATDT' had a choice to volonteer or not to volunteer.
So again, where was the 'so-called' lie they had to live by???

Anybody?

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:20AM

And you are an expert on polling now? How did you determine that YOU know what the military really thinks?
"So again, where was the 'so-called' lie they had to live by???" - are you really that stupid? Gay military have been discharged (14,000 at last count) by the simple fact that someone found out they were gay. Not for committing any criminal act or dishonorable behavior, but simply for being gay. They HAD TO LIE to cover up who they really were in order to fight and die for our country - and you criticize them?

The real truth is that the vast majority of young people care not whether someone is gay or not. And, since the majority of enlisted and low ranking officers are under 30, the repeal of DADT was not a big deal for them - if you knew any young people, you would know that.

Oh, and btw, since we DO have a volunteer army - you are right about that - anyone who really objects to DADT repealed can quit the Armed Forces whenever they see fit.

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 10:28AM

Tell me what an Air Force REMF puke knows about "the real military."

goatlocker| 12.23.10 @ 3:05PM

Bravo Zulu!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:23PM

Wow, that really countered my argument didn't it? putz.

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 10:41AM

"anyone who really objects to DADT repealed can quit the Armed Forces whenever they see fit"

One cannot quit the Armed Force WHENEVER one sees fit, one must fulfil the commitment, but the real problem is when and if they do. I won't predict the future, but given 2/3 of the marines do not support this, we could be in a world of hurt if they take your suggestion. Be careful what you wish for.

JF| 12.23.10 @ 3:46PM

You are right on two counts - one, there will be a number of military people who won't re-up because DADT was passed, and two, if the US ends up involved in a major conflict and the draft is reinstated, there will be a whole heap of gay people who wish DADT was never passed ("be careful what you wish for....") And don't put it past this administration to escalate a situation late in 2011 so as to cement Obama's presidency - the left has repeated the myth that the only reason GW Bush was reelected was that we were involved in Iraq so often that making Obama a "war president" may look like a good strategy.

tj| 12.23.10 @ 11:03AM

Just more PC crap to beat the military down by homosexual activists. We are not stupid purple guys just AWAKE!!! I believe in 2012 and Santa Claus and Christmas

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:09AM

Why are you here???

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:26PM

Perhaps as a lone voice of the non-right. Not exactly left, truly independent (which I'm sure you wouldn't believe, since many of you are so far right, you're almost left), but GW Bush's years did push me further left.
Anyway, you needn't read what I write, unless you really have something to say and stop whining.

Eric Cartman| 12.23.10 @ 12:02PM

Purpleguy, you got a gerbel up your ass?

GenXer3*| 12.23.10 @ 12:04PM

This Eric Cartman is a foul-mouthed, retarded fool, and he should be barred from commenting.

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:18PM

Purpleguy, there are (mostly unenforced) penalties associated with lying on your service entry forms. These are because people used to lie to avoid service during the draft. It's ironic that the military became so successful that people started lying to hide "who they really were." Now, let's reverse the equation. I would like to exempted from the draft because I am a Bible believing Christian (or Jew or Muslim). We're not talking about volunteering now, we're talking about being forced to serve during wartime. Do I get an exemption, like homos and college kids and "Christian" pacifists used to get? I am sincerely interested in your opinion on this issue.

Richard H. Davis| 12.23.10 @ 12:43PM

What draft???

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:00PM

Well, I was referring to the draft that existed, off-and-on, prior to the implementation of the All Volunteer Force in the 1970s. But Congress could reinstate a draft at any time, due to a national emergency or problems in recruiting or merely a desire that every citizen perform some type of national service. I've been against the draft because people who don't want to be where they are can be troublemakers, but now I only care about exempting all believing Christians, Jews, and Muslims who should not have to be "teamed" (or "unequally yoked") in a life-or-death situation with (what they believe to be) evil.

W| 12.23.10 @ 4:04PM

Frisbee and Evanston2 are the same as Purple and TedR

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:19PM

I am also The Walrus, koo koo k'choo. Though I don't know if Paul is Dead or not...
Stop inhaling the whacky weed, W.

Vernon Rosa| 12.23.10 @ 3:44PM

"The real truth is that the vast majority of young people care not whether someone is gay or not." What difference does it make, mister, what the majority of young people do, or do not, care about? I was a young person once, and when I was young I was in the military...and in Vietnam. I would have cared a great deal if the guy next to me was coveting pinups of Englebert Humperdink rather than Farrah Fawcett. I don't believe that makes me a bad person. By the way yourself... Only military officers can resign "whenever they see fit" as you put it. John Doe the NCO is in until the end of his enlistment, be that one year or six.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:34PM

Yes, you're right, enlistment must end first - there is no procedure to end early. I knew that as soon as I wrote it, but left it anyway, because they do have the freedom to leave when there enlistment is up.
No, you're not a bad person, but why should you have the right to lust after Farrah, but another man cannot lust after Englebert? What bearing does that have on a soldier's ability to carry a rifle, shoot straight and come to your rescue if you are in trouble? it's just homophobia in my book.

Oh, and the reason it matters what young people think is that they are the future of the military, they are the new recruits, the volunteers of the future.
They are not the old farts that are passed military age, but are stuck in the past.

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:43PM

No dumbars, once again your stupidity exposes you. When Casey declared after the Ft. Hood massacre that the most critical issue facing the military was its LACK OF DIVERSITY, that alone described the political correctness BS that has now seeped from El Chosen One through his AG Stedmann into the officer ranks of our military. Just as in the corporate world, the opinion dictates of corporate executives dwindle down to represent the views of the lowest employees, simply due to their fear of losing their jobs, paychecks, pensions,etc if they disagree with their superiors; so too in the military, the opinion of the DOMESTIC TERRORIST IN CHARGE obviously reins supreme [as in COMMANDER]. This repeal will destroy our military, period!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LiveFreeOrDie| 12.23.10 @ 6:25PM

"They HAD TO LIE to..."

No, they didn't. The rules were clear when they signed up yet they CHOSE to join. CHOSE to lie. CHOSE their action. There's certainly no "right" to serve in the military and there's no obligation either.

"...anyone who really objects to DADT repealed can quit the Armed Forces whenever they see fit."

No, they can't. Desertion results in a felony conviction and they aren't allowed to quit "whenever they see fit."

Ever read back your drivel before you post it?

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:41PM

Guess you never heard of 20 year veterans who were dismissed because DADT was instituted AFTER they joined, huh? And, if you knew anything about being gay, you would know that people wrestle with it for a long time - knowing the outside world doesn't accept you as you are, and so many fight it and try to be straight - this period of confusion can continue well into the 30's, far beyond an initial enlistment, when you didn't consider yourself gay, or tried to deny it to even yourself. I mean, why would anyone "choose" to be gay - the last, most hated and degraded member of society? They don't choose it anymore than you chose to be straight. You could have sex with a man though, just as a gay man can have sex with a woman - now wouldn't that be confusing to you too?
Learn something about the people you hate, and you might have a heart and try to understand what they deal with and stop adding to their burden.
In any case, many gay service members are exemplary and very dedicated to their careers, and I for one, am glad to see the American people on the side of greater freedom and less restriction by the government.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 2:49PM

Purple, this post disappoints -- it's not up to your standards. First off, before DADT the induction forms clearly listed being gay as a disqualifier for service. DADT were regulations promulgated after Congress passed legislation formally banning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, and the Clinton Administration made DOD write up DADT in such a manner to 'stop witchhunts' (hence "Don't ask...). Second, people all sorts of lusts, and the nature versus nurture argument (e.g., DNA versus environment) is debated in all sorts of behavioral areas. We are often told that people do badly in school or are criminals, for example, due to nurture. But it seems that only the area of homosexuality is 100% nature, right? Let's turn this around. Perhaps my "hate" is 100% nature. I can't choose to stop it, it's based upon my sexuality. And very soon I may be a member of the "most hated and degraded" part of society -- a Bible-believing Christian. Let's be honest, homosexual behaviors predated Judeo-Christianity, and the return is regressive, not (as you may wish to describe it) "progressive." I wonder if all the benefits of Christian society will disappear with its values? We'll find out soon enough. I know that before God saved me homos didn't bother me, that 'left more women for me.' Go do your thing, live and let live, etc. Degraded? Homosexual behavior itself is degrading if you value fidelity at all, and clearly unhealthy. The societal results of the formal approval of marriage, etc. will be profound. But be wary of what you want, you may get it. Or as we are told in Rev. 22:11, "Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.” I will continue to urge you to do right because it is the loving thing to do. If you persist in your sin and your blind defense of it, it is because you have decided to do so.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:46PM

You missed my point that many gays that enlist in service in their teens or early 20's don't think they are gay, or are not sure they are gay, or refuse to admit to themselves that they are gay due to the stigma attached to it.

You rightly point out that the nuture vs. nature debate is hardly settled, one way or the other. But that is just the debate. You must ask gay people what their lives are like, what they experience as gay people, how they are treated, etc. to really understand gay life. Do you know any gay people?
In any case, what sin am I persisting in? Thanks for your concern, but I'm sure I'm no more a sinner than anyone else is, imperfect as are we all.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 12:22AM

Purple, Actually the Bible does discriminate between sins in regard to severity of evil. We are all the same insofar as we are all deserving of hell without accepting Christ's payment on our behalf. Passages regarding both heaven and hell indicate there are degrees of punishment and reward. Yes, I know a few gay men. I have never asked them about the "cause" of their orientation, but I have observed (1) they seek instant gratification, and enjoy the lifestyle due to it and (2) they are the most disloyal bunch I have ever met in my life. Of course, that's just my "experience." But you asked, and I tell (since DADT doesn't seem operative any more). Which returns us to the point I "missed" -- "that many gays that enlist in service in their teens or early 20's don't think they are gay, or are not sure they are gay." You assert that homosexuality is irresistible, yet really murky for many. Sorry I missed the contradiction. Finally, some "refuse to admit to themselves that they are gay due to the stigma attached to it." Curiously, some refuse to do all sorts of things because of the stigma attached by society. Some of these activities are even sexual (like cheating on one's wife, being a 'slut', pedophilia, rape). The rule now, as you note elsewhere, is that our "democracy" (whether unilaterally invented by judges, or voted in lame duck sessions by Congress) has decided that now it's OK to do certain things. You can get away with it. But oddly enough, some people don't believe that popularity determines whether an act is good or evil, for the person or for society as a whole.

lewkrol| 12.24.10 @ 11:46PM

Purpleguy, you need a paragoric for logorrhea

Negro X| 12.23.10 @ 9:53PM

PG,
You can't just quit the military you ignorant buffoon. Your stupidity is appalling but understandable coming from moron who believes only he can save black people.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:42PM

No shit, Sherlock - answered above, you twit.

Abe | 12.24.10 @ 12:35AM

You say anyone can "quit the Armed Forces whenever they see fit" That's exactly what will happen to the straight soldiers and all that will be left is a "Gay" army! Can you imagine that?

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:02AM

and the vast majority don't serve in the military.

you can't this hopelessly inept in the way you reason.....can you?

Alan Brooks| 12.27.10 @ 9:35AM

The most recent polls are overwhelming: 95% of gays are ALSO pedophiles and 99% of pedophiles are ALSO gay. I knew that and Purpleguy knew that too, we never needed any poll. We will soon have the most child friendly armed forces in the world and it will make us a powerful force. Just consider the turkish army until the 20th century, sodomy was rampant, as was the anal rape (that requires lust to have the necessary erection to perform that therefore sexual act successfully) of prisoners and children, but it didn't prevent the turkish army to be feared in all Europe in a shamefuldisplay of homophobia.

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 2:04PM

Oh, and btw, since we DO have a volunteer army - you are right about that - anyone who really objects to DADT repealed can quit the Armed Forces whenever they see fit.

Purplegay: It's obvious to the MOST casual observer that YOU have never been in the service with a stupid remark like you posted above. Yes, just tell them you want to quit. What a dumb asshole you really are. By the way did you 'google' Larry Sinclair/Obama yet? No?? What are you waiting for?

Clint| 12.23.10 @ 6:57AM

"As for how well the 1993 lifting of the ban of openly gay service in the IDF has worked out for gays, for example, a survey released in 2006 by an Israeli “homosexual youth organization among homosexual and lesbian soldiers” found “52 percent of gay soldiers experienced some form of sexual harassment during their Israeli military service.” Hardly a ringing endorsement of a smooth transition."

http://www.familysecuritymatte.....detail.asp

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:22AM

That's nice, but we're not Israel .... Look up the statistics for women in the military, in the US Military - I'll guarantee you there is more harassment of women in uniform than there will ever be of gays. Are you advocating kicking women out of the Armed Forces as well?

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 10:33AM

"I'll guarantee you there is more harassment of women in uniform than there will ever be of gays."

You can't garantee that. It will be equally as bad, if not worse. PERIOD. And yes, many active duty Naval officers, like my Dad when he was alive, spoke to the fact that having women aboard ships has now lead to an almost high school like atomosphere. And the rates of pregnancy are pretty eybrow raising.

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 2:33PM

no...he can't prove it. he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. no surprise there.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:43PM

Thank you for making my point .. I kinda think pregnancy is a dead giveaway of "fraternization", yeah? :)

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:05AM

no. and you have no clue what you are talking about anyway.

many of us have actually dealt with this problem. funny how it happens about 2-3 weeks before deployment with no hope of any manpower backfill. leaving everyone else to hang.

Alan Brooks| 12.27.10 @ 5:23PM

quote [I kinda think pregnancy is a dead giveaway of "fraternization"]
And in the case of gay soldiers, what is the giveaway? diarrhea? syphilis?

Helen Montgomery| 12.27.10 @ 3:00PM

Yes, Navy Brat, and whoever came up with the stupid-assed notion that women should/will serve on naval ships should have their balls surgically removed ASAP!

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 10:44AM

You are right! We are not Israel where service is compulsory for men and women, and where the IDF (the D is for defense) soldiers generally go home at night. There are no protracted engagements overseas for their combat units and little sharing of barracks.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:45PM

There was a time American men wouldn't share a room with Irish, Italian, Jewish, or Black men... so now they will share a bunk or space with a gay man - and? I presume it's not at the same time ... ;)

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:06AM

jeepers Mr Wilson! how could I miss that? sexual orientation is no different from an attribute like skin color. you nailed it!

John Navratil| 12.24.10 @ 11:32PM

Non sequitor!

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:56AM

Oh, the IRONY! Before DADT repeal, people who were pro-repeal said, "Look! It worked without a hitch in the IDF!"

Those against pointed out, "We aren't Israel."

Now those in favor of repeal are here, saying the same thing.....

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:47PM

That was in response to a comment that Israel had issues with harassment ... or did you miss that?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:10AM

Why are you here???

Richard H. Davis| 12.23.10 @ 12:46PM

You just want to discuss the issue with people who agree with you? I would suggest that that's not a discussion.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 2:07PM

No, I want to discuss with others who want to have an actual discussion and exchange of ideas. I have little tolerance for those who just throw out red herrings, talking points, and ad hominems.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:48PM

Then, let's hear some positions on issues, so we can discuss them. So far, all you do is ask 'why are you here', like you're the comment monitor ... well? Do you have a position on anything?

Clint| 12.23.10 @ 1:17PM

Do Your Homework Pogue Wingwiper.

" First of all, the Israeli military is comprised of draftees. All must serve, except the most religious observants. Most Israelis resent this exclusion, and more very Orthodox are now serving, most in "separate-but-equal" units. The most observant usually avoid the issue of gays in the military, to avoid more attention on their avoidance of serving.

Second, small Israel needs every able-bodied man and woman to serve.

Third, In addition, Israel's deployments -- unlike the US' -- usually do not involve long distances, close quarters, or other comparable conditions, that elevate the potential for sexual tension. Israeli popular culture is somewhat accepting of homosexuality, but most homosexuals in the IDF are discrete. Israel took over ten-years of careful implementation to reach today's more open acceptance of gays in its military.

Fourth, Those arguing for US repeal of DADT are determined to do it instantly or close to that. Sec.Def. Gates argues that Congressional repeal will head off more court interference in military discipline. That's a false argument. Activists in the gay community are sure to press in the courts, anyway, for more and more lax rules of conduct.

Fifth, the US military is not comprised of draftees, but volunteers. Those who volunteer are from the most motivated. Those at the firing line, already under severe stress, in majority reject repealing DADT. Putting them under more stress, and re-education programs, during this time is simply inane and insane."

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:51PM

Agreed, Israel is in a totally different position than we are.
I agree that carefully laying out a process for this ban to be lifted is wise, and hope it proceeds smoothly.
Acceptance of gay people is happening in the larger population, and the military will again mirror the population when this is done. They come late to the table, but glad they are coming.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:10AM

you're such a fraud. "acceptance of gay people is happening in the population". not in the sense you intend you putz. while conveniently electoral results......you obfuscate the fact that most no longer care about how individuals conduct themselves sexually...but do care about the politics of the gay community and how that plays into the larger set of social engineering goals of the Liberal minority.

man...you lack of integrity is appalling. or are you really this obtuse?

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:14PM

must be your time of the month ... rag, rag, rag. no evidence, but rag, rag, rag.

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:46PM

The issue is not kicking out anyone, but rather forcing homosexuals in the military to STAY IN THEIR GD CLOSETS and not use their military service as a staging point for a GAY PRIDE PARADE, dumbars!!!!!!!!!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:55PM

That's what your worried about? OMG - are you off base with the wants/needs of the gay military personnel. They want nothing more than to serve their country honorably and to the best of their ability. It's wrong to keep them in their closets, just as it's wrong to keep old people in homes, shunned by society, because they aren't good enough anymore. They aren't strong, with lots of energy, and have many sicknesses - but is that reason to shun them? No, it isn't. They deserve their dignity and so do gay people. They all are people first and should be treated as such.
You aren't gay, fine, but you are wrong to try to lock them away like so much trash of society.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:14AM

what a bunch of crap. there are some who want to serve honorably. and there are some/many who are there to find partners. I have first hand experience and anecdotal experience in court marshals that leave no doubt in my mind about that.

again...you are so dishonest/uninformed it boggles the mind. the irony is that because you are so dishonest...your lack of integrity undercuts the very case you are trying to make.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:17PM

As you point out, bad apples that transgress are caught, tried and removed... so what's your point? Pick any segment of society and you can always find p___ks that run afoul of the law.
That is hardly got anything to do with gays serving honorably in the service or my integrity.
Do you sit up nights making this s__t up?

Coal Miner's Son| 12.23.10 @ 7:11AM

It ain't over yet. I heard yesterday the VA National Guard was implementing its own ban on gays. But, I have a couple of observations to offer.
I spent some time in the reserves while in college. The actual idea of serving with gays doesn't bother me. I've also worked with gays in my civillian job, one whom I consider a friend was one of the hardest workers and smartest people I ever knew. He left my employer, and he and several of his friends opened a restaurant--which my wife and I frequented often--no problems.

However--and this is the big one. I am concerned about the stories I hear when gay marriage is legalized and churches are sued because they won't rent out their properties for same-sex weddings on moral grounds. If my former co-worker and his partner want to get "marrie", I don't have a problem until churches start getting penalized for "homophobia".

Having said that: I see the lifting of DADT as something bigger--an end run around state's rights. I was listening to NPR (yes NPR!) the other day, and I heard the guy talking about how other countries allow gays to serve in the military. But, there are exceptions. In most other countries, military service is compulsory. Also, no other country in the world has its servicemembers placed in gov't housing as far and wide as the USA.

My point:
What will happen when PFC Billy's "partner" can't qualify for on-base housing because their not married? I smell a lawsuit coming?

What will happen when Straight Private based in S. Korea finds the love of his life and files the paperwork to get married and bring her back home to become a US citizen. All the while Gay Private can't bring his "boyfriend" home the same way. To the Libs, it will "smack of unfairness", all bans against same-sex marriage will be overturned and your scruples and the 10th Ammendment be damned. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:30AM

So, although you admirably accept gay people, you seem to only accept them if they don't get in your way. Why would you agree to keep them separate, but equal, as long as we don't have to accommodate any special needs for them and their families, since we created the imbalance for them in the first place.
Remember the phrases "All men are created equal ..." and "equal treatment under the law ..." - they don't say "as long as it's convenient for the majority" ... and that's why Courts step in - that is the ONLY reason Courts step in - to protect the minority from the majority. Which by the way, is the main purpose behind the Bill of Rights. Look it up in the Federalist Papers, if you don't believe me.

Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton all knew that the majority would always have their way - unless specifically denied the ability to inhibit free speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and so on from the Bill of Rights.
Oh, and one more thing - Any rights or powers not specifically granted by the Constitution are reserved to the people - which is another reason the Courts step in.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:12AM

Wrong on all counts. Depart and gain more bearing, then come back and comment when you are worthy.

By the way, why are you here???

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:58PM

THIS, is what you call discussing the issues? No opposing opinion, no facts, no nothing. hahaha. When you decide to be serious, then come back, otherwise go ply you plucky wisdom somewhere else.

Tell me again - why are YOU here?

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:18AM

borrowing a thought from Heraclitus repurposed by Bertrand Russell:

"Of Purpleguy does the saying bear witness....he is absent when present."

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:27PM

Well, you just took a big giant shit on freedom of religion. Just say the words "homosexuality" and "sin" and wait for your dishonorable discharge from the new homo army. But who needs all those bigots, anyways, right? There are plenty of Ivy Leaguers and homos waiting in the wings to "serve." So what if we currently have the most successful military in the history of mankind? Let's change the culture -- it's the machines that matter, right? -- not the behavior and beliefs of the trigger pullers. Nice little social experiment. When the bullets start flying and the casualties pile up, I wonder how the new homo army will perform? But that was the underlying purpose from the liberal perspective, wasn't it, a "win-win." If the new homo army works, you win, if it gets defeated in battle, you win because liberals want the U.N. to rule globally and defense money poured down the bottomless maw of entitlement programs. Nice victory you got there.

10%&growin;'| 12.23.10 @ 2:14PM

Hey Evanston2

Get this: Israeli military has always recruited gay soldiers and many of its officers are homosexual.

Yes, Israeli military----greatest in world----has always accepted gays and gays are in leadership positions.

Look it up sucker!

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 4:50PM

More like 2%,

The IDF doesn't recruit its soldiers, at all. Service is compulsory for all men and women with few exceptions. The IDF didn't always accept gays. It began in 1983, I believe. IDF forces generally go home to sleep at night, not much risk of casual buggery there. Finally, the Israeli military has done some remarkable things, particularly when unconstrained, but Mr. Ohlmert certainly didn't have a great success last time with the, as you say, "greatest in the world".

Look it up yourself.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 4:59PM

I doubt it. I mean really, you actually think the Israeli army put out a call specifically for more gay people to enlist?

In any case, the Israeli army turned in a pretty abysmal performance in their most recent combat operation (Cast Lead). Greatest military in the world? Not so much.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 3:07PM

10%. Thanks for the smile: "greatest in the world." By what measure? They haven't had a real force-on-force conflict since the early 1970s. They've had Arab states as opponents, and only had to beat them in their own back yard. They didn't have to go halfway across the world, and we did better than the Israelis in both the Gulf War and OIF. But hey, you're the military expert, right? What did 22 years as a USMC officer teach me? Nothing, evidently. I don't even understand my own psychology. I don't understand that people like me (guess at a percentage -- 90, 60, 40, 10%?) will learn to trust homos and that everything will be OK when my life is on the line. When I tell a homo to "take point" he won't question the order, right? Or will he distrust me because I'm straight and I spared the straight guys? Or reverse it. I'm a homo officer and I tell a straight guy to take point and keep a homo enlisted peer out of danger. How is this going to work out? We already have sexual harassment problems when most of the force is all male. How will this work out now that male-on-male sexual harassment is possible, and the straights will be worrying about everything they say or decision they make regarding a homo, lest it be a career ender? But rest assured, it'll all be OK during peacetime. Hey, the military will continue. But during war, trust is all you have. When it breaks down, we'll all know it. Though the last thing that will be blamed is homos in the military. Because after all, it's more important to have casualties that reflect "diversity" than to actually win wars. Go to Israel, maybe they'll be safe, but the U.S. will be vulnerable within 1 military generation (20 years -- when all the bigots like me have been flushed out by retirement). Then you'll no longer have Christian bigots. You'll have worldly bigots, you know, the ones who live by the same credo you do: if it feels good, do it. If you think they'll hold the line in a battle, where the smart thing to do is run, you understand nothing about humanity, no less the military.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:00PM

And there are fewer and fewer of you homophobes every day ...

Did you miss the fact that 10% of the Armed Services is staffed by gay people? Hmmmm?

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 2:53PM

Purple, if 10% is accurate (and I have no idea) then they were constrained by DADT. The safeties have now been removed, institutionally the policy is lust-first, self-sacrifice last. During DADT homos were asked to sacrifice their lifestyle but it seems that was too much to ask. Now you think you'll get a better result. Fine, but I'm glad it's not my life on the line (unless the U.S. gets hit) in your social experiment.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:23PM

You really don't understand what the repeal of DADT means, do you? That's a shame.
The laws and code of conduct in the UCMJ stays the same.
Gay people will simply not be discharged for the simple fact they are gay. That's it. There is NOTHING SEXUAL about it, and no acceptance of gay sexual behavior has anything to do with DADT.
Now, some in the military will need diversity training to drop words like Fag and Fairy that are derogatory remarks aimed to hurt gay people and cultivate some acceptance. That should be about the only change. It's really a big noise about nothing. Gay people are here, they always have been, so accept them as your brothers and be Christian.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 1:06AM

Purple, here's where I truly try to tell you something new. All the rest of my comments are really a waste of time, and I know it. I'm not going to persuade you or anyone else about DADT or Christianity (unless God does a work on them). But you're throwing your punches after the bell. You see, you've won. What? America. The whole culture war. But bear with me and allow me to start with the military. You and I know that the only UCMJ provisions regarding heterosexuals that have been enforced are regarding adultery (when a spouse, typically a wife, complains), harassment and rape. Sleeping around is OK as long as done with civilians or doesn't jump the enlisted/officer barrier or the chain of command. Even then, it's been dicey to enforce. Even the USMC, which has a must-be-the-same-rank standard for fraternization, only enforced it in egregious cases. There will be a network of 'gay' (use whatever word you wish, no difference in reality) activity, guaranteed, under present the UCMJ. And why oh why do you think that the UCMJ, or at least its enforcement, won't change with implementation of DADT repeal? The political trend is self-evident: the full gay lifestyle has been embraced. So returning to the U.S. as a whole, if by law homosexuality is protected and any opposition subject to penalty (type depending on context), you have won. The culture war, and I mean the entire culture war including abortion, etc. is effectively over. Gratification over religious standards (see argumentation on Prop 8). So here's where you don't get it: everything has changed. If we're willing to risk national defense in order to implement this, there are no realistic barriers to implementation elsewhere. Put another way, if you're willing to risk national existence for something, just tweaking the internal paperwork no longer is a problem. Lower courts, and probably SCOTUS, will cite DADT now to back up the pleasure principle. This is a different country, now. From elementary school on up, the new ethic will be taught and enforced. Government (particularly regulation) is everywhere and anything outside of the grounds of a church (and even then, it'll be fought) will give way to the new ethic. I am not myself "swinging after the bell" -- this really should be self-evident to you. The nation is yours now. Real Christians can't go along with it. Regarding your "brothers" comment, if you really looked at the Bible you would know that the term "brother" is restricted to Christians. "Neighbor" is the best term that applies to non-believers (and we are to love them as we do ourselves, but Christian self love is limited by repentant hatred of our own evil). We are to love God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind. This means that ideally our attitude toward sinners should be the same as God's, that is, subject to repentance. Without repentance, forgiveness is not possible (see all the Gospels, really all the Bible for that matter). So repeating & returning to my attempt to "educate" (here's your Good News!) my point is that you will find no partnership with bigots like me. You and this nation will live or die by this new ethic. America, as we knew it, is dead (and my contention is that it's all over but the shouting). You really need to celebrate New Year's. It's a new America, and as the world leader in culture, money, military power, etc. a new World. Finally, thank you for reading my comments. Hopefully I'll return the courtesy and respond to any further points you may have, but I am otherwise effectively done here. *Oh, the test they had us 2ndLts take at TBS was probably the GCT.

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 3:17PM

Yes, numbnuts.. That means that 90% are NOT queers. Go figure!!

Eric Cartman| 12.23.10 @ 12:40PM

My niece brought a gay friend home from college with her for Thanksgiving. We were gathered on the deck talking and laughing when I was told by another niece that the friend was gay.

When I heard that I said "Well I'll be damned if I'll eat at the table with a fu****g faggot!

Well, everybody was horrified at my words, and me and my wife got in the car and headed home.
The family is still furious, but I don't give a flying f ***! That's just me--bad ol' Eric!

Kathryn L.| 12.23.10 @ 2:10PM

Eric Cartman,

Scramble the letters in the word *live* and you will see what you are. It's probably to difficult for your pathetic brain, so I will solve it for you--VILE. And VILE certainly describes you.

I thank God that you are not related to me.

John2| 12.23.10 @ 2:50PM

One hopes the family learns something from a principled reaction to their little plan to encourage and accept evil.

God| 12.23.10 @ 7:05PM

I bless you Kathryn L.

As for Eric Cartman and John2, I have in mind an appropriate disease to start off their New Year.

It's called stomach cancer. I believe these two deserve it because they are so lacking in basic compassion.

In other words, they are too full of the devil!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:01PM

You got that right - homophobic Eric ... just for kicks, what if a black man showed up?

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 8:30AM

Purpleguy attempts to Play The Race Card.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:45PM

Well, ignorant of one minority, why not another?

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 9:35PM

Because Liberal WhiteyBoy is attempting once again, to use Blacks as cannon fodder for His Liberal WhiteyBoy Gay Apologist Agenda.

A common Liberal Whitey

Purpleguy| 12.27.10 @ 10:25AM

After all, I ignore all minorities, all I care for is being gay and instant gratification.

Purpleguy| 12.27.10 @ 10:19AM

Just asking because if a black man showed up i wouldn't miss a chance to give him the best blow job of his life and I would tell him:" Not bad for a straight black!"

Ralph Emery| 12.27.10 @ 3:22PM

Yes, and what if he was a queer nigger?? Then what?

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:50PM

Dumbars, their rights were not being denied prior to enactment of the repeal, which will simply now allow them to come out of their closet and celebrate their gayness while in uniform [and therefore be SPECIAL, as opposed to the UNSPECIALNESS demanded of military members]. What a friggin dumbars you are!!!!!!!!

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:23AM

that's my problem with the whole deal. I don't particularly care if DADT is repealed. what matters to me is twofold:

- the military/political leadership has taken ZERO steps to address competing equities

- this is going to be exploited...as you hint....to ground the whole system into yet another quagmire of EEO actions and political correctness that assaults the integrity of the whole system. none of the subtleties are ver reported...mostly because the staunchest advocates never served themselves, don't care about the consequences, are chasing a much broader set of objectives.

Arlington BigFish| 12.23.10 @ 7:44PM

Your post is so full of distortions & misinformation that it's hard to know what to respond to.

Two points:

1. If same-sex marriage is made legal, it will be legal down at the courthouse, where you get your marriage license & can get a judge to perform the ceremony, if that's what you want. Churches will still be able to place any kind of restrictions they want on who the preacher performs the ceremony for. They do that now: changing the marriage laws won't have any impact on them.

2. Heterosexual couples can't get military on-base housing if they haven't tied the knot. I expect the same would apply to homosexual couples -- assuming the base was in one of the 6 states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Howard| 12.23.10 @ 7:52AM

I am dismayed at how Adm. Mullen licks Obama's boots all of the time. He is nothing more than a political hack wearing a uniform. I am certain that the Supreme Court eventually would like legalized gays in the military anyway. I prefer Congress passing it than having the courts decide things. Still not a good day.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:33AM

This is a man 40 years in the military who rose up to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and you, with all your military expertise denigrate him, because you don't like a decision he made. What a turd. And, on top of it, the democratic process passed the repeal of DADT, and you have a problem with THAT?

Love America or leave.

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 10:35AM

Typical lib puke. If you don't agree with something that you guys like, then we have to shut up & leave. G*d FORBID we have an opinion or criticize someone about the decisions they make.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:04PM

yep, your father would be proud how you stand up for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs - that's not a lib issue - the creep is denigrating our highest military official - and you're okay with that? You do realize this guy is okay with the repeal of DADT, or did you miss that too?

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 10:47AM

Purpleguy,

Surely you know that positions at this level are political. These guys are appointed, not promoted into these jobs. It's a consequence of having a civilian, and political, Commander in Chief.

Just as with the President, we don't have to respect every utterance.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:05PM

And, confirmed by Congress, I might add. So, the American people confirmed him through their representatives, and by denigrating him personally, this guy is hardly supporting the troops or the American people.

John Navratil| 12.24.10 @ 11:26PM

Did you say something relevant or coherent?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:13AM

Why are you here???

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:37PM

Purpleguy, and what if people "leave." That is, what if they 'vote with their feet' so to speak? This is what is happening to the economy: why work your tail off to be taxed more? Regarding the military: why fight for just another nation? Seriously, if we drop American exceptionalism (which up to now included Christian values) then we might as well be Canadians or join the E.U., etc. Simply put, is America worth dying for any more? Lots and lots of people who previously said "yes" may say "no" now. You ought to worry about this, but you don't, because for now you can engage in homosexual acts and call it a 'civil right' or even 'marriage.' Look at what's happening in the E.U. I wonder how the Muslims will treat your gay partners there, one generation hence? Will straight Americans fight to save Europe this time? If the Chinese haven't already destroyed us re-taking Taiwan, you'll find out. The future is yours. You won't be able to leave it.

Richard H. Davis| 12.23.10 @ 12:56PM

I would say that a major part of American exceptionalism is our ability to make Americans out of immigrants from all over the world, something that the Europeans have not been able to achieve. Muslims in America, I would suggest, will be Americans first and Muslims second, just as many Christians are Americans first and Christians second. The Pope, for example, holds much less sway over Americans than the rules of the Roman Catholic Church would suggest. BTW, who do you think that we will be fighting to save Europe from? The North Koreans or the Iranians?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 2:20PM

With all due respect, I think you are completely mistaken about Muslims being Americans first and Muslims second. For several reasons. First, Islam and our US Constitution are diametrically opposed and thus fundamentally incompatible.

Second, as a Christian, if I have to choose, I am a Christian first and then an American. But since Christianity is not incompatible with a constitutional republic, there is no inherent problem with that.

Why would you expect a Muslim to be any different? Of course they are going to put their Muslim faith first. And their Koran commands them to overthrow our laws and replace them with sharia law. Islam will be the first religion to gain a foothold in America that will NOT assimilate. Within ten years Muslims in America will be demanding their "rights" not to be under any law except sharia. Thirty years from now, they will be demanding that the rest of us non-Muslims submit to sharia. Mark my words.

Intelligent Design| 12.23.10 @ 6:23PM

Exactly! Islam should be identified by Congress as a subversive organization, and handled accordingly. Muslim immigration should be shut down, mosques should be outlawed, all Muslim "charities" should be shut down, shari'a should banned in the U.S., Muslims should be banned from all U.S. airports and airplanes, and Saudi Arabia should be viewed more clearly, as the source of funding for subversive jihad intended to destroy the Constitution and freedom. The threat is not just from terrorists, it's from "mainstream" Muslims. A good book to read is The Grand Jihad - How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, by Andrew McCarthy. He is a former federal prosecutor who helped launch the 9/11 investigation.

Jimmy Newell| 12.27.10 @ 3:33PM

Muslim immigration should be shut down, mosques should be outlawed, all Muslim "charities" should be shut down, shari'a should banned in the U.S., Muslims should be banned from all U.S. airports and airplanes, and Saudi Arabia should be viewed more clearly, as the source of funding for subversive jihad intended to destroy the Constitution and freedom. The threat is not just from terrorists, it's from "mainstream" Muslims. A good book to read is The Grand Jihad - How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, by Andrew McCarthy. He is a former federal prosecutor who helped launch the 9/11 investigation, which was a farce from the beginning,, and was FAR from being at all truthful.

YES intelligent design, BUT do you think for a mili-second that the *HMIC would sign off on something like this??

* Head Muslim In Charge.

Sammy| 12.23.10 @ 7:00PM

Radical Islam is building a better world for us all, one body at a time!

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 4:06PM

There are always outliers, but I would suggest that Maj. Hasan is, at least, a counterpoint to your suggestion.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:10PM

Only someone never been in the military would ask such questions.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 3:21PM

Purple, sometimes the back-and-forth of these posts is hard to follow, but if you're saying that I never served then you're wrong. Worse, it is you who understands little or nothing about the U.S. military, the kind of people who are recruited, and how the culture (up 'til now) has shaped their values further. I was not a Marine's Marine (or what we call a Posterboard Marine) by any stretch of the imagination, not a "water walker" and let's be clear: I worked in logistics, so while I have a BSM it only means I was good at what I did. Not great. 22 years, USMC LtCol. To be effective I had to understand my "customers" in the combat arms. In a way, I wish I could believe you, that you are really this clueless about what has just happened, about what you have wished on all of us. But despite all the keystrokes I've placed here, I have no illusions. I will persuade no one, this nation will find that changing a culture (that is, behavior and values) does produce different outcomes. It is true that no one wins a war, but let me add a personal aphorism: "You sure know when you lose a war." It's too bad you have to drag down a lot of innocent people with you, but that's in the nature of society, that we are "free riders" on many social goods and we must take the "bads" with it. Oh well, might as well end with a Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 2:37PM

and you're an idiot windbag.

I worked for the guy. so nothing you say has any credibility whatsoever in my book.

how do you survive day to day? your thinking patterns are so shallow.

Goatlocker| 12.23.10 @ 3:09PM

If it walks like a turd, talks like a turd, looks like a turd, writes like a turd and smells like a turd. it's a turd. And you, Purpleguy, are a turd. End of discussion.

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:54PM

No, dipexcrement, this is a man that fears to speak his mind to protect his job, paycheck, pension, etc. Oh, as to the democratic process, right, a bunch of sleazeball, domestic terrorist Democrats and corrupt ambulance chasing lawyers having money stuffed into their pockets by homosexuals to vote/rule a certain way is the all American way in your asinine opinion, huh????????

Howard| 12.23.10 @ 5:04PM

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote. I respect the repeal was done via legislation rather than through a court decision. I have mixed feelings on the legislation. My main concern is how this process will be implemented. I may be pleased or displeased.

As far as Adm Mullen, I stand by my belief that his a political hack, a la Al Haig. You do not need to be a military man to know a phony.

You seem rather quick yourself to denigrate people who write on this site. Perhaps you should do as you say!

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 3:30PM

I think Adm Crowe is more the model than Haig. After retirement as CJCS, Crowe worked actively for gays in the military and was rewarded by Clinton with an ambassadorship and in 2004 backstabbed Pres. Bush. He died in 2007, otherwise he'd have reappeared as a liberal talking head. Out of the thousands of retired admirals and generals it's hard to find a sellout, but once the find a Crowe or a Wesley Clark the media tout them as supergeniuses and superpatriots for a as long as they can. Mullen? If he shuts his yap after retirement he may be respected, but I believe he'll be defending his statements until he dies. Also, he better like attending cocktail parties in D.C. with the ladies and metrosexuals because he'll never be welcome amongst military men again.

Purpleguy| 12.27.10 @ 10:32AM

I am sooo tolerant! I can't stand the military being criticized when they're on my (back) side but I can't stand the military when they're straight.

rongordo | 12.23.10 @ 8:00AM

Tolerance will now be enforced by law.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:34AM

As the Constitution expects ... did you miss the Bill of Rights?

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:58AM

No, we didn't miss the Bill of Rights. But you did. No where does the Bill of Rights say that tolerance has to be enforced. In fact, I'll bet that tolerance isn't even mentioned.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:13AM

Why are you here, Perp???

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:56PM

Ah, stick the Bill of Rights WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE [and make your homosexual friends excited]!!!!!!!!!!

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 3:36PM

Oldefarte, last time I checked the Bill of Rights included freedom of religion, the press, the right to keep & bear arms, etc. I'd rather keep it, if you don't mind. Oddly enough, the right to stick your pecker up someone's poop chute and call it marriage isn't mentioned. Nor was it mentioned for over 200 years of this nation's existence. Yet, according to Purple and all sorts of wise judges, that right was there all along. Amazing thing, it is, when such people also so "You can't legislate morality" and then they legislate a new morality with no legislation to back it up. It's a good thing people like Purple know what's best for us, or we'd really be in trouble, right?

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:53PM

"Equal protection under the law" is in the Constitution and puts no strings on it as to sex, race, sexual orientation, age, height, weight, health or anything else.
Btw - there is no mention of straight marriage in the Constitution either - does that mean it's not Constitutional?

And, I disagree - you can legislate morality - it doesn't work, but you can legislate it. Over time morality issues change, and legislation may have an impact, but the public's will has much more impact on morality. As in the case of the DADT repeal.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 1:33AM

Purple, By definition all laws are moral (and I never said otherwise). But by "morality" you really mean sexual practices. And to claim that there was never a legal understanding of what constitutes 'marriage' contradicts laws regarding marriage to minors, polygamy and incest. Until the late '70s there was no dispute regarding homosexuality, either: "Equal Protection" meant that if a single man wanted to marry an unrelated single woman, they could. In other words, there was equal opportunity to marry under the law but not equality regarding what is endorsed by the State as marriage. To cite "Equal protection under the law" as a means to override existing marriage laws and shoehorn in homosexuality (while excluding marriage to minors, polygamy and incest) is truly silly. I know you've heard this argument before, we all have, so let's skip the fiction. The reality is that this right, which you assert as well-established, did not exist at all for 200 years and has been invented out of nothing. You really don't need a legal reason or argument for it, because we have a "living Constitution" now and that means whatever you want is OK. This living Constitution is the new progressive legal practice, it is dominant in academia and trending ever-upward in the courts. Polygamy, marriage to minors, incest, what-have-you are only "unprotected" because they are not popular. I'm NOT saying that legal recognition will be extended to those other arrangements, because under the living Constitution it may not suit the tastes of academia and the wise people in robes. If you can re-interpret the law regarding the most fundamental social institution, then society has in fact become lawless. Again, it's a new day. Congratulations.

RCV| 12.27.10 @ 7:16PM

All laws are decidedly not "morals". Everyone trained in the law knows that there is a difference between offenses which are "malum in se" and those which are "malum prohibitum" -- i.e., things that are bad to do because they are evil in themselves, and things that are bad to do because there is a law against it, even though it would not be immoral to do that thing if there was no law.

Among the laws that are "malum prohibitum" are jaywalking, driving without a license, practicing medicine without a license, smoking marijuana, etc.

There are many laws we would all agree are malum in se - murder, theft, assault, rape.

Sixty years ago, people pretty universally believed that homosexuality fell into that category. It is clear now that there is not such a universal consensus. Most states had decriminalized consensual homosexual behavior even before the courts struck down such laws as unconstitutional.

Evanston2| 12.29.10 @ 12:35AM

RCV, I have a M.S. in contracts -- but definitely am not an attorney. Also 4 years of Latin. So let's start with your contention: that "all laws are not morals." But that's not what I said. I said "all laws are moral." You are conflating 2 different concepts. Acts that are malum in se have a direct, causal connection that is immoral (e.g., murder). Acts that are malum prohibitum may indirectly lead to the same effect (i.e., jaywalking can lead to a car accident that may lead to loss of life). Turning the causation around, it is the moral value of human life that leads to laws against murder and jaywalking. Beyond causation, obviously intent is a factor in deciding how evil ("malum") an act may be. But all laws have a moral basis. Further, your discussion about decriminalization says nothing about amendments to the Constitution, because there were none. Nor any Federal legislation leading to re-interpretation of the Constitution. So Purple's constant invocation of "equal rights" only applies to State constitutions, and there is a huge difference between a legislative & executive branch passing a law decriminalizing an activity and a judicial branch re-interpreting that same activity to give it special, protected status (e.g., invention of gay "marriage"). Nice try.

martin j smith| 12.23.10 @ 8:20AM

The night of the living dead. Our media friends want us ( the stupid people ) to believe obama has 'come back". I am not sure he ever LEFT!!!. ( that is a stupid pun but i could not help myself there I know ). As I mentioned in a previous post, Unless Obama becomes a flaming Capitalist, and does things that will cause signdificant changes in our employment levels in the private sector ( and to what degree do you really believe he will do this ?????????????? ) I do not think so. Then too is ongoing power grabs. as the FCC affaire. So, if the MSM want to try to build Obama up as the New Living Dead fine, but unless the issues of real JOBS and related matters actually change significantly by 2012 a Jobless recovery will not cut it. And attempted power grabs will lead to major battles. Lies of the LEFT used to work, not so much any more

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:37AM

So where are the jobs? it's been almost 2 months since the election and Republicans will control the House? My God, the largest tax cut in history in 2009 and another tax cut now and extension of the Bush tax cuts - where are all the jobs that tax cuts provide? They don't - investment does.

Tim the Enchanter| 12.23.10 @ 11:06AM

I could answer your rhetorical question, but you have proven, via your posts, that you are too obtuse and closed-minded to understand. Rather not waste time on fools such as you.

tj| 12.23.10 @ 11:12AM

More lies troll...businesses create jobs, not the government for you people still on the dumbocrat forced poor plantation. I believe in 2012, Santa Claus and Christmas.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:11PM

And, what did you think "Investment" meant - it means in small business. That's where 90% of jobs are created.... And, if no one else is investing, how is that investment to happen? the investment fairy?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:14AM

Why are you here???

Clint| 12.23.10 @ 1:34PM

Apparently, Purpleguy didn't get the memo:

The 112th Congress will be sworn in & seated until January 3rd,2011.

Clint| 12.23.10 @ 2:27PM

Typo.

The 112th Congress will not be sworn in & seated until January 3rd,2011.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:13PM

Really? Wow, I didn't know that .. and it will Jan 5th, not 3rd....

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 7:38AM

Yeah Really Pseudo-Intellectual Negative Attention Seeking Bloviator.
Aaaand apparently, You didn't know, because you would understand that Republicans don't control The House until January 3rd,2011 and Democraps will still control The Senate and The Executive.
Aaaand, January 3,2011 is Constitutionally-defined start of 112th Congress
(actual swearing-in of new Members likely to take place on Jan. 4 or Jan. 5)

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 3:44PM

Dems have controlled Congress (both houses) since Jan 2007. Things have gone swimmingly since then, of course, except for the evil Iraq war where W's surge failed. Oops, reverse all that. Now how could I get that wrong...must've been watching what is fancifully called "the news." And now that Republicans control the House (but not the Senate, not the Presidency, not most of the Judiciary -- see homo "rights") it'll be the Republicans' fault if things continue to go downhill. At least that'll be what we're told in the news.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:56PM

If the R's continue their stonewalling obstructionism, yes, it will fall on them. Either they come to the center or they will be gone. I have my doubts they will compromise and move centrist ... and they will reap the results.

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 9:45PM

Apparently, Purpleguy didn't get the memo.

"On the tax deal, the president gave up more than Republicans to ensure that he and his party didn't get blamed for a hike in taxes for all Americans that they failed to stop before the elections."
"Republicans won on spending, forcing enactment of a short-term resolution keeping the government funded into March rather than an earmark-pocked trillion-dollar-plus omnibus appropriations bill running through September. That victory reflected popular displeasure with spending in general and earmarks in particular.

They also prevailed in blocking the DREAM Act, which would have given a path to citizenship to certain children of illegal immigrants who serve in the military or complete two years at a four-year college. The Republican base was dead-set against it, and the GOP held firm."

Aaaaand, Many Of Today's Indies Ain't The Center & Ain't Moderates.

That's Why You Clowns Got " Shellacked " In These Elections.

Mona Pinson| 12.27.10 @ 3:47PM

You ask '"where are the jobs"? Answer:

Because of the last three (3) asshole presidents, (including this one) they are MOSTLY in some OTHER country.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 12.23.10 @ 8:53AM

The real danger here is not the end of DADT, the real problem that some hinted at above is that our military appears top heavy with boot lickers with big mouths and big tongues, whose only goal is to lick the feet of the politically elite.

Major Nidal Hassan's career is but another example of the specific danger of the military succumbing to a form of central economic planning while being steeped in the voodoo socialism of diversity and multiculturalism.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:38AM

What a way to support the troops - were you a draft dodger?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:14AM

Why are you here???

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:42PM

The troops are on their own now, including my brother in law (Maj, USMC) and former peers (now USN CAPT or USMC Col). I've stopped saying the Pledge and leading it at my local church Awana group. Christianity is counter-cultural (that's why they tortured Christ to death) and while America was a haven for a while, that is coming to an end. And when it comes to dodging the draft, I'll be telling any kid who listens to do so. It's all yours now, Purpleguy. Along with the Ivy Leaguers and Unitarians, etc. who most assuredly will volunteer in big numbers now, right? Good luck, stupid f____.

RCV| 12.24.10 @ 12:04PM

I'm not in the least surprised that you've stopped saying the pledge. It's clear you have little allegiance to our country and its ideals and principles.

RCV | 12.24.10 @ 3:54PM

What are those ideas and principles? Please define. And why shouldn't I be a rebel now? It was good enough for John Kerry, good enough for Clinton, good enough for Obama. I'll be a free rider now. Let others do the lifting. Grow my hair, smoke pot and screw everything in sight. If things go bad, blame others. But truly, my first allegiance is to Christ, and Him crucified. Which makes me far more counter-cultural than the hippies and pinkos ever were. Why do you think Homeland Security put out a warning early in the O administration about Christian servicemen returning from Iraq? I'm their enemy, they know it. Because I believe that the Constitution enshrines freedom of religion, but now the made-up freedom to be a homo means that if I believe the Bible then I am disqualified from the military. In sum, RCV, the elite has betrayed this nation. If you're part of it, then keep on the way you're going. I protected you during the Cold War, the Gulf War, Iraq and some small shootouts in between. But evidently you're the better man because of your devotion to...what? If what you call "ideas and principles" are constantly re-interpreted and then deleted when they are inconvenient to our lusts, then what is left? Well, evidently YOUR values. And I'm not pledging my allegiance to you. I swore oaths to defend the Constitution. I fulfilled them. You have betrayed them.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 1:35AM

This is really freaky, the comment above attributed to "RCV" that starts "What are those ideas and principles" was written by me. Gremlins are at work on this site...

RCV| 12.27.10 @ 5:26PM

Well, I knew it wasn't I who had posted it!

You do have freedom of religion - the freedom for YOU to practice your faith. But not the freedom to make everyone else practice your faith. Whatever your religious beliefs about homosexuality, the rest of us are not obligated to follow them.

I would never want you to pledge your allegience to me, nor to any other leader or person. And please, enlighten me as to what Constitutional provisions I have "betrayed" -- it is a document I have sworn many times to uphold and defend, and have always strived to do so.

Evanston2| 12.29.10 @ 1:22AM

RCV, Let's start with your definition: "You do have freedom of religion - the freedom for YOU to practice your faith. But not the freedom to make everyone else practice your faith." But it's not so simple, is it? Because government continues to expand into every nook and cranny of our lives, if not through legislation then through regulation. So when I am a Catholic adoption agency and the State tells me I must sponsor gay adoptions or the State will revoke my charter, what is happening? Well, I can still believe what I believe, but my ability to practice it has been reduced, hasn't it? This happened in MA. Another real-life example: if my church rents a hall out for weddings but does not recognize gay weddings, it must do so because the State says it must (VT). How long until anyone who sells anything will be forced to provide services for gay activities, or lose their business? How long until the EEOC and its state equivalents impose quotas (oops, I mean "affirmative action") for hiring and promoting gays in any business? Have I made my point? Let's reverse the question: in what area of our lives is there no government? I trust you may have many answers, but for me only 1 clear area comes to mind: 'the bedroom.' This is the real source of the penumbra that created abortion as a Constitutional right out of thin air. This is the real source of the judicial rulings in the states creating gay rights and gay marriage with no legislation (and in the case of CA, arguing that a Constitutional Amendment passed per Constitutional procedures is somehow unConstitutional). So, while the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions all have language respecting free exercise of religion, these are all trumped by the invisible provisions created by judges. Sec'y Gates and ADM Mullen, along with conservatives like Krauthammer, have used the "inevitability" argument to say that DADT repeal via legislation is better than leaving it to the courts. That is, we must reduce free exercise of religion for most people in order to stop judges from doing it in a way that has an extremely negative impact on national defense. In your view, this may be Constitutional, and if you want to swear your allegiance to this, good for you. You may not see it, but from my perspective you have sold yourself to judges. Your first comment, that "It's clear you have little allegiance to our country and its ideals and principles" shows that YOUR ideals and principles exclude those held by the Founding Fathers and most of the men who died for this country. But technically you're right, you're the solid citizen. Way to go, bro. When you come to arrest me, please put me in the east wing of the prison so I can enjoy the sun setting on this country.

Evanston2| 12.29.10 @ 1:27AM

Oops, shoulda said "west wing" at the conclusion of post immediately above. And while I'm admitting to stupidity, I believe that the post I wrote that was labeled "RCV" was my fault -- that I probably typed "RCV" in the NAME block instead of at the start of my comments (though there's no way of knowing for sure, this is the most reasonable explanation).

Al| 12.23.10 @ 8:06PM

Hey Purpleguy- You are so far from reality! True story- A gay airman tried to molest me while I was sleeping. This is one of those true stories that you don't even think about. By doing so, he served his country dishonorably. In case you have not heard,it is a crime to attempt molestation. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. He had an "urge" he couldn't stop.....

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:15PM

So, one incident and all gay men are the same? is that it? Come on, use common sense. You think that never happened to a woman in service? I hope this guy was appropriately disciplined, as he should be. Gay or straight, molestation is wrong, period. It's not just a gay issue, now is it?

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 4:02PM

Purple, you're right and wrong. Sure, generalizing from one incident or one person is folly. But you take an institution where we already have sexual harassment problems (or were you asleep during all the stories on 60 Minutes, etc.?) with only approx. 15% females, and you've decided to add the problem to the male-male interaction of the other 85%. You know, probably better than I, how stealthy homosexual liaisons, spurnings and payback can be. Don't lie, no need, you already won DADT and there's no way it'll ever be worse. Be honest and admit you've added a huge amount of social complexity to an arena (combat) where undiluted trust is most needed. If Al were in the service today, he'd be in a jam. The MAJ Hasan example applies. Homos are now special, say something against them (even use the word "homo" for example) and you know you're gonna get a counseling or worse. Straights aren't fools, even if you've fooled yourself.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:02PM

Majorities never get it... the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights is in place to protect the Minority from Majority abuses. And the Courts are there to enforce the constitutionality of what the majority legislates.

When you are in the Majority, you have great power... and with great power comes great responsibility. Of course, you shouldn't call someone "homo" - why should you be allowed to call someone names? it's harassment, and all harassment is illegal.
If you've never been in minority, congratulations, but many people understand that a minority is not just color of your skin. It can be teenagers with acne or girls who are overweight - anyone that is different can be picked on and we are taught not to pick on others - it usually doesn't come naturally.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who's parents apparently didn't teach them fairness and tolerance for others, and sadly it's on display here far too often.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 1:45AM

Purple, you avoided everything I said. Well done. Except when I use the word "Homo." So, how is that different from "Gay?" A rose by any other name is really the same. If I described homosexual acts on television I would be censored immediately. But I can put a nice label like "gay" and I'm OK, or use a disapproved term like "fag" and I'm a bad man. But homosexual acts are the same, regardless. I've been in a minority and discriminated against for reasons that had nothing to do with my performance. But I have no complaint about people who call someone fat -- if you're fat, that's what you are -- or have acne -- it's gross, sorry -- and if you don't believe that there is such a thing as natural, and healthy, discrimination then you have a fundamentally different understanding of yourself and others. Thank you, though, for forcing it on me and everyone else. For some reason, as you say "far too often," people don't appreciate your forcing your values on them in regard to anything you see as off limits (zit-face, fatty, you name it). Be like Purple or be prosecuted. This is the new freedom.

Brian Mc| 12.23.10 @ 8:55AM

If you cannot see the atrociousness; the outright hedonistic insult to decency that is undermining the very fabric of our culture perpetrated by the gay lobby, try the Kay's Jewelry commercial featuring the young family, with an adoring same-sex couple holding the baby, on for size. If you have trouble dealing with the preposterousness and absurdity of the thought, welcome to the coming revolution where all the evils (inherent with those who ally themselves to progressivism in all its pussy forms) finally have its Waterloo moment. The socialists have overextended themselves and have pushed too hard and too far and I fear the 'writings on the wall'. We either right this ship and bring the alien kicking and screaming back to reality in the next two years or, there will be bloody times ahead. Personally, I'm scared.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:39AM

Stop whining and embrace the Founders' vision of "All men are created equal ..." and " form a more perfect union... "

Teamwasted| 12.23.10 @ 10:10AM

It says "all men are created equal", not "all girly men are created equal". Brush up on "Sodom and Gomorrah" while you're at it.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:15AM

Why are you here???

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:47PM

Gee, Purpleguy, it seems that some people don't want to "form a more perfect union" with you. You better force them to agree, right? This is the new ethic of tolerance. Congratulations, from all of us bigots. You now can lead the nation into the new golden (shower?) age. We're pretty much happy with a beer and a fat wife to screw. You can do the fighting now, for your "union."

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:17PM

You sure have the gay lingo down there buddy. Sure you don't have a closet you hide in now and then? Luckily, you wouldn't pass the entrance exam for service.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 4:09PM

Purple, which "entrance exam" are you referring to? I was NROTC. I think they made us take the ASVAB or equivalent at TBS but that was just for statistical measurement purposes. You see, unlike you, I had a successful military career. But if you're referring to an induction form, where in the old spot (reserved for "Are you a practicing homosexual" prior to DADT) they'll now put "Do you find homosexuality morally reprehensible" or words to that effect. And by that standard, I and people like me will be rejected from military service, probably in the near future. Personally, I'd like that enshrined in a law exempting bigots like me from the draft as well. You see, it's time that I got what you had all along: a "get out of jail free" card where all you'd have to say is "I'm gay" to avoid the draft. It's funny how you try to get one outcome, but somehow get another, isn't it? Regardless, we will never be in a union of any sort unless God changes your heart.

Ret. Marine| 12.24.10 @ 5:38AM

MAN-UP, Brian. In this world or the next, we will have our revenge and as the saying goes, "it is best served cold steel style"

Brian Mc| 12.24.10 @ 6:27AM

You're right and I thank you for the kick in the pants...Sempre Fi, my friend.

JP| 12.23.10 @ 8:56AM

It may be a bit more difficult to cover up the future problems with gays in the military than it was concerning females in the military (the DOD and the MSM have been very successfull in keeping that issue under wraps). In the age of You Tube and blogs, we should get a pretty good feel for what the rank and file service members feel during the next few years. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the DOD phases in the repeal very slowly. Like over the next 3-5 years. Like ObamaCare, the DOD could phase the repeal in with one eye on the 2012 elections. That way, the political fall-out won't touch Obama. Never underestimate these people.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:05AM

Stop whining, they won some hard fought victories and you're just moaning that your Republican caucus fell apart - you should be decrying their cowardness in caving to the Democrats. It is still a Congress in session. The election didn't change that! " in an undemocratic lame-duck session of Congress." And, just what is undemocratic of a Congress that has a 2 yr term exercising it's authority granted to it by the American people 2 years ago?
With regard to DADT - "That just shows the repeal is an elitist, not populist, victory," - Really? over 70% of the American people support the repeal of DADT, and 70% of the Military either support the repeal or don't care one bit. Is that undemocratic too?
"Moreover, he showed no concern about the new deception a majority of combat troops who object to the repeal will now have to live." - that's just a plain lie. The majority of combat troops are not against the repeal.
"So, while insurgents and terrorists trained, Obama was sitting around with his generals and worrying about how to make the U.S. military gay-friendly." - While it is understandable after 8 years of Bush you would think a President can do only one thing at a time, that is not the case with Barack Obama. He is obviously much more adept at politics and accomplishments than his predecessor ever was.
"since the big news from the Census is that Americans are migrating to parts of the country the left regards as racist and homophobic." - that's not really news, now is it? That's been going on for 40 years ... people moving to the sunbelt - it's coincidental that they are moving into Red state territory - however that may have the delightful outcome of turning some Red states purple, if not outright blue. Especially, in Hispanic strongholds like Florida and Texas. Should Texas turn blue, it's over for the Republicans electorally.

pineapple1| 12.23.10 @ 9:25AM

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 9:28AM

pfffft...this is not a representative government. this is not a government that even reads its own bills. this is a government that intentionally abrogated its fiscal responsibilities. this is a power elite that is systematically undermining all key institutions in service of some vague notions of global government and global community.

this is a government that lost on the front where the first assault is going to come: the spending that that sustains its statist/globalist ambitions.

stay tuned.....more dismantling to follow over the next two yrs. the blood bath is just beginning.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:40AM

Are you talking about Bush, Obama or America in general?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:16AM

Are you still here? Why?

Jack | 12.23.10 @ 11:17AM

Is this all you have to do? Do you find it fulfilling?

George True| 12.23.10 @ 2:25PM

No, not especially. But Ihave just had it up to here with Purpleguy and other leftist trolls like him coming here and intentionally derailing real, substantive, meaningful discussion.

Arlington Big Fish| 12.23.10 @ 7:51PM

"substantive, meaningful, discussion" !!!??? Have you been reading this chain?

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:18PM

Care to point to one of yours? I didn't think so... shut up and stop trying to infringe my freedom of speech.

Ret. Marine| 12.24.10 @ 6:15AM

Purple pundit. Reading this line from my original thoughts posted, I keep asking myself, why is it this turd rolling filth slinger ( see purple-guy) does not answer the main points of this arguments, that being your cowards-n-thief, ( never served or defended this country or the Constitution) obamas Bin Ly'n, is a traitor ( believes he's a man of the world order ) to every thing moral in this country and add to that why would a 111th Congress openly defies the the "will of the consent" American public with this end round of illegal/immoral signings of every thing We the "straight, fiscally minded, defenders of Liberty, Justice and most things of a temperately moral and Godly thinking and actionable payers of your types, filthy turd rolling slingers, your "GAY" friends, you said it, right , are more than fed-up with this usurper-n-thief, The People of these United States. Do you think this type of behaviour it acceptable for the most of us who believe in a moral compass? Do you and your GAY turd rolling filth slingers believe this man has the moral interest in mind when he caves to the p/c ( petulent club) bull shale and with great delight, does not recognize the path of evilness and is going to meet his maker in the end, ( I'm not going to miss this for the universe by the way) knowing his moral leanings is right along side the devil himself? You talk a lot of good non-sense but, as shown most of it is pure partisan bull puckies, " whoa unto those who call evil good and good evil" look it up purple turd rolling slinger, it applies to you and your stated moral positions. I would wish you a merry christmas, but, as evidence suggest you are either an atheist or of such moral depravity that you cannot in vision your hell that will come your way one day. I'll instead pray you find the light of God's temperament and join the moral club of this world before you enter the next, so to speak. That's all that is required of me. I still feel this son of a goat herder, obamas Bin Ly'n, is nothing in the whole scheme of things and will be placed aside of all the progressive losers such as FDR, good ole teddy, Wilson and jimmmaaaah, "high I'm a peanut farmer" carter ( complete with the SC's dismissals as unConstitutional. And good luck with your 5th grade antics. p.s. tell daddy o's, sorros, his ,moral depravity is not welcomed here either.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:43PM

Sorry, can't follow your poorly punctuated and horrible grammar ramblings here... Stick to short paragraphs.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:30AM

you have NO right to post on this particular blog. they can ban you any time they please.

once again...are you this hopelessly obtuse?

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:42PM

Did you just learn the word "obtuse" ?

George S| 12.23.10 @ 2:34PM

Please don't speak on behalf of the combat troops (I may be slow but something tells you are one of them).

Ret. Marine| 12.24.10 @ 6:20AM

Yeah good ole purple turd slinger here, would not even know how to properly field clean his shitted drawers after the first round wizzed past his morally depraved pan group. But it would be fun to watch the shaking and fumbling incoherency ramblings trying to collect a single command.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:34AM

if memory serves...could be mistaken....purple was an Air Force reservist who "served" for 5 or so years. hence, his profound understanding of military culture and processes. if not...my mistake...all the more reason to doubt his routinely suspect intellectual integrity.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:45PM

Not sure how 'reservist' got in there, I never said that, nor never was. Air Force, yes, though and proud of it.

Carrot top| 12.27.10 @ 4:06PM

Ret Marine:

Here's one for you...

Did you hear that Obama's youngest daughter ate too many pineapples on her vacation in Hawaii, and got diarrhea? Yea, she thought she was melting!!

Semper Fi...

DRed| 12.23.10 @ 9:12AM

Repeal passed in the house 250-175. It passed in the senate 65-31. Roughly 2/3 of the public supported repeal. And you think that was undemocratic and elitist? Get real. This article is counterfactual nonsense. If you'd like to see an arrogant, out of touch elitist, Mr. Neumayr, I suggest you take a look in your mirror.

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 9:31AM

1) The public wasn't voting on the real agenda behind this.

2) The public was mislead by the leadership in a manner that did not consider competing equities.

3) The public also understands that fascists who stand behind all of this - claiming public support when it matters and abrogating electoral results when it suits their purposes.

pack sand fraud.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:42AM

Wow, that sounds like a Fixed News list of tactics... did you hear Fox News viewers are the most misinformed viewers? They actually did a study of this ...

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:17AM

You still haven't answered my question. Why are you here???

LiveFreeOrDie| 12.23.10 @ 6:43PM

You cite an awful lot of numbers with nary a source. Ignorant lies, nothing more.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:36AM

I already know that isn't case after watching MSNBC broadcasts. either way.....the response is irrelevant to the assertions.

geez...no one will ever fault you for lacking a sense of humor! you are routinely amusing to me!!!

Arlington BigFish| 12.23.10 @ 7:57PM

"The public wasn't voting on the real agenda...." The public wasn't voting on anything. They were asked a question by the pollsters about DADT, & 70% said they approved repealing it.

"The public was mislead [sic]...." So when the public takes a stance you disagree with, they're mis-guided?

"Fascists... stand behind all this..." Is it fascists or socialists. You need to get your ideologies straight. You can be one or the other, but you can't be both.

Jeremiah| 12.27.10 @ 11:11AM

The fascists were socialists. They still are.

Jackson Hole| 12.23.10 @ 9:29AM

Can't get 'er done during the regular session, I'll get 'er done during the lameduck. These runes, many haven't anything to waste cause they got kick out on their hiney, so come on boys, one last great hurrah on me!

DADT? Why that was a Clintonista debaukle wasn't it? I'll set those Communistic fakes right and put in a humersexual policy that will make them scream like pigs, in fact, I hear them bellering right now.

Migration? Who cares about migration. I still got the northern and west coast states, and the rest is just plain fly over country. They don't mean a thing except as a recepticle for emptying out the toilets. Forty years my arse! We're rid of 'em I say, and the more the merrier.

Texas turning blue? Yeah. They'turning blue from choking on the bible thumbin', gun totin', clingers. Funny though, the population growth has flattened out the last ten years, but as long as we've got them imigrants coming in, things will be fine in the long run.

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 9:35AM

you know...the material state of the existing force structure may be abysmal...and force modernization may be going down the toilet...but the Obama administration will be able to lay claim to repealing DADT as its signature achievement!!!

don't look now....but those missiles aimed at us are coming soon to a Latin American country of freedom and human dignity!!!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:46AM

Actually, yes - current population trends in Texas show the Hispanic population growing to majority status in Texas over the next 10-20 years. And that's just Texas. And, since Republicans are oh so kind to the Latino population, who do you thing the majority of them will be voting for?
Ya know, the Mexicans have never ceded Texas to us in their heart, they still consider Texas as part of Mexico - and so they will turn it Mexican and blue all at the same time... how interesting.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 11:00AM

You are an excellent propagandist. However, spin won't change facts.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:19AM

Gain more wisdom. Come back when you are worthy.

LiveFreeOrDie| 12.23.10 @ 6:45PM

More ignorant lies, no source to back it up. The usual.

Derek Leaberry| 12.23.10 @ 9:37AM

President Obama, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi rode rings around the clueless duo of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. I expect that the situation will little change next year.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:48AM

They sure did! What a triumph! And, whining here to the contrary - there is nothing wrong with legislation passed during the lame duck session. All parties are freed from the pressures of re-election and can vote their conscience - and so they have and Democratic principles have won the Day!

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:20AM

You're still here?

tj| 12.23.10 @ 11:42AM

dumborats don't have principles! Pal

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:58PM

Purpleguy, that's a bit twisted, isn't it? You say that being "freed from the pressures of re-election" is equivalent to "Democratic principles?" Somehow, acting against the wishes of the voters doesn't seem democratic. But then again, I lack your hatred for most Americans in order to enshrine (and let's face it, there'll be special protections, affirmative action, etc.) the self-destructive, disease propagating, and lust-first values of the few. So your version of democracy is if you can't win elections of ballot initiatives, (fudge) pack the judiciary and vote "your conscience" right after you've been voted out of office. You're against freedom and you're not free, you're a slave to a strong delusion (II Thess 2:11-12).

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:24PM

So, are you advocating a Congress relinquish it's duties to fulfill a 2 year commitment to serve? Really? The lameduck session is simply a name the press invented - there is no reason the elected officials from the 2008 election should not pass legislation, important to the country, with the remaining time they have in office. Just because YOU don't like the legislation they passed, or that another election was held, is no reason to quit their service to the country.
The new Congress will have their turn - and we'll see how they do for us. Somehow, the name "Do-nothing" Congress comes to mind for the future Congress - but I'll wait and see if they live up to that name.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 4:23PM

No Purple, I quoted you and showed you the hypocrisy of your rhetoric. And you skedaddled as quickly as you would on a battlefield. I never said that Congress couldn't lawfully do what it did, it's obviously lawful. That they chose to do it right before losing their majority, rushing the legislation, makes the whole enterprise smarmy at best. For you to hold this up as a triumph of democracy is ludicrous. Sure, I don't like it, there's lots of things I don't like. So I'm going to serve my country by telling the young folk that their first loyalty is to the God of the Bible, and that wonderful people like Purpleguy and the Ivy League graduates and Unitarians will now protect us. We're all going to kick back, relax, and enjoy your Brave New World. Free advice: don't surrender to the Muslims. They enjoy being with boys, not men, and they don't keep their swords sharp so decapitations can take a while.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:50PM

And, what legislation, pray tell, has been rushed? Just because McConnell and others complain doesn't make it rushed, does it? The START treaty has been in the works since April - is that a rush. The 9/11 first responders bill has been in the works for years. DADT repeal was a campaign promise from 2008! the Omnibus bill to keep the government funded for next year? the Dream Act that has been simmering for years ? Judge confirmations that have been held up all year. None of those just appeared out of nowhere ... What else was "rushed" ? Well, what?

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 1:58AM

DADT was rushed after the elections. The study that was released was not originally due to be concluded at this juncture. There was no time for Congressional hearings to check its validity or for the public to get energized. I could care less about the rest of the pieces of paper. From a dollar bill to new START to the Omnibus, all are meaningless if you don't have a country. You're endangering the whole shooting match and as I've stated elsewhere, invented new rights and had them trump old ones in order to enshrine lust in the law. You haven't truly accepted the scope of what you've accomplished and its consequences. This isn't a game changer for cultural conservatism. This is "game over." We can balance the budget all day long but if the culture is poisonous, we'll only succeed in being slightly more efficient in our self destruction.

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 4:15PM

Purpleguy,

We elect REPRESENTATIVES who are supposed to represent US in Congress. Sometime, they do as they will and have to explain their votes to the electorate, and sometime they are voted out.

Once you have been replaced, any moral authority as a representative of the people is lost. This is why lame duck sessions, which exist from the day when it took weeks for one to travel from Walla Walla to Washington, D.C., typically tackled menial activities and symbolic resolutions.

Not this crowd -- cram, push, rule by executive order. They have lost all sense of the will of the people. You assertion that "Democratic principles have won the Day" is absurd, and I expect you would be among the loudest critics if the shoe were on the other foot and privatization of Social Security, or elimination of the minimum wage were being forced against the people will during a lame duck. Tell me you would be so sanguine then.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:27PM

So, by your reckoning, all Congresses should just pass the torch immediately after a new election changes the makeup of the current Congress. Is that it?
Well, if that's what you want, then lobby for Congress to be sworn in the day after an election - as you say it doesn't take weeks to get anywhere now. That would take an amendment to the Constitution, but so be it.

Until then, what the Congress does with it's time is it's own business, and this Congress finally delivered on many of the issues that the American people wanted them to when they were elected. Not all, but many.
Now it will be the Republicans that have power - let's see how they deliver - low taxes and no deficits....

dance...dance to the radio| 12.24.10 @ 10:45PM

Sorry Purpleguy, you're wrong on this one.
I don't care about DADT.
In Canada, and other parliamentary democracies, we have a tradition where there are implicit rules of fair play that are not spelled out in our laws.
Chief among these is the concept of mandate.
It is not written into our law, but it is a tradition that suggests that legislation may be passed, no matter how unpalatable, if the government has the perceived mandate to do so.
So, just because the rules say you can do something, or are not forbidden by law from doing so, a lame duck government has clearly lost it's mandate to govern and should not use it's privilege in contravention of the will of the majority.

John Navratil| 12.24.10 @ 11:31PM

When it took two month to swear in a new Congress, there wasn't much to worry about. Now that it is an anachronism AND with with the demonstrated willingness of a lame duck Congress to do after the election that which they could not do before and face the electorate, I say that the torch should be passed as soon as possible. Two hundred years ago, that is exactly what we did. Just a minor update of the procedure, not a wholesale rewrite. I'll be working on seeing that happen.

Ret. Marine| 12.25.10 @ 9:50AM

See, purple turd, you are either confused as to where you live, democratic society, or are as lame dead as you come off, this is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, you public edumicated fudge pack'n slinger of immoral repute. See what happens folks when an education is free, you get mud packers opinions as their truths, not ours, theirs. By the way fudge pack'n mud slinger, ( see purple turd) all of this immoral packaging of unConstitutional laws, signed by your idol Obamas Bin Ly'n will be repealed by the moral majority, it might take a little time but it will be REPEALED. God will not be mocked.

J Kelley| 12.23.10 @ 10:12AM

The Democrats lost the majority in the House because the voters did not agree with their policies. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate for the same reason. This is why in the Lame Duck Congress they went aginst the will of the people. The next 2 years will be much diferent, Republicans can not be shut out, as they were with the Dem controled Congress.Check back toward the end of 2011.

RCV| 12.24.10 @ 12:15PM

Each and every major bill passed during this last month had majority public support, including DADT repeal. Whenever you folks win at the polls, it's "the people" speaking, but when the majority of the public opposes your views, they've been "fooled" or "misled". I have a strong feeling you're going to be very disillusioned over the next two years as the President and Congress reach constructive agreement on a number of issues, and Obama is reelected in 2012 because the GOP is split asunder by infighting.

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 4:27PM

RCV, If we could put DADT up for a ballot initiative nationwide, would you agree to it? Uh sure, absolutely, the polls are correct about "majority public support" right? Liar.

RCV| 12.27.10 @ 5:21PM

As you conservatives are fond of reminding us, this is a republic not a democracy. We don't put people's constitutional rights up for initiative votes.

Evanston2| 12.29.10 @ 1:46AM

RCV, It seems your confidence in "majority public support, including DADT repeal" was a lie. Well, surprise surprise. Also, in CA there was a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution that followed Constitutional procedures but has (thus far) been trumped by "rights" that were somehow invisible and unknown for over 200 years of our country's existence. Sorry to remind you about inconvenient facts -- that there are ballot initiatives regarding rights -- but seriously, who cares? You've won the culture war. This isn't a republic nor a democracy, it is now an RCVocracy where repeating something makes it so. Hey, there's majority public support for this! Hey, there isn't but so what! Hey, you can't vote on any rights I, RCV, have invented! Hey, freedom to exercise your religion isn't a constitutional right! Hey, not only am I free to stick my dick wherever, you must rent your church out to me and bake a cake with the lewd images I want and if you won't let me adopt a kid (or any other service you can think of) I'll revoke your license to do business! Hey, I've sworn to defend the Constitution! "Hey" doesn't sound good, let's try "Heil" instead.

Tim*| 12.24.10 @ 7:05PM

"On the tax deal, the president gave up more than Republicans to ensure that he and his party didn't get blamed for a hike in taxes for all Americans that they failed to stop before the elections."
"Republicans won on spending, forcing enactment of a short-term resolution keeping the government funded into March rather than an earmark-pocked trillion-dollar-plus omnibus appropriations bill running through September. That victory reflected popular displeasure with spending in general and earmarks in particular.

They also prevailed in blocking the DREAM Act, which would have given a path to citizenship to certain children of illegal immigrants who serve in the military or complete two years at a four-year college. The Republican base was dead-set against it, and the GOP held firm."

Charlie Souter| 12.27.10 @ 4:24PM

RCV..

In your post, you said...
I have a strong feeling you're going to be very disillusioned over the next two years as the President and Congress reach constructive agreement on a number of issues, and Obama is reelected in 2012 because the GOP is split asunder by infighting.

Mark my words here:

By election time, there will be enough states requiring PROOF of eligibility BEFORE one can get on the ballot, that Obummer will not even be nominated by the Democraps BECAUSE they all KNOW he is not a citizen of the USA... Obummer will be damn lucky to stay out of jail...Actually the bastard needs to be put on the firing squad, and NOT as one of the riflemen..

RCV| 12.27.10 @ 5:20PM

None of those state acts purporting to regulate federal elections is constitutional, as at least one court has already ruled. They're only passed for political pablum for those like you. Obama will not only be renominated; he will be relelected in 2012 by another comfortable margin.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:40AM

well..they did...if you bother to actually read the details (unlike Dems)...succeed in selling this country out in the START Treaty. but I digress. They lost where it mattered most - in the spending debate and legislation. you are nuts if you think this isn't the major issue of our times and one that is already being redressed...by the people... int the Congress, State Governorships and State assemblies. this one is far from over......and Obama does not hold the upper hand.

martin j smith| 12.23.10 @ 10:00AM

I think we have to give the new congress a chance at whacking Obama and his fellow travlers. The one thing for sure is that everyone will need to be level headed and not alllow the MSM or Obama to change that course. I sense, at times there are psoters who are either panickers or phonies who post to get people to panic. You can be there are phony posters--paid to provoke spread rhumors and lies. This is the way things are so better get used to it. You have to get into the head of the LEFT and their devious thinking and methods in order to understand and defeat them. The current repub leadership does not, but I suspect new comers will. And, some of the guys whom can't waite for the Tea Party folks to start their terms like Rep Peter King of LI, NY is going to start an investigation to Islamic Organizations not cooperating with Law enforcement. In addition, he wants to challenge the PC thinking about the connection between terrorism and Islam. There is a need to bust thru the liars of the Left. Watch for that and support these efforts.

Frank Drackman | 12.23.10 @ 10:00AM

Surprised the Prez (Peace be upon Him) hasnt leaned on the Red Cross, you know, those Homo-fobes who won't let Men-Who-'ve-Had-Sex-With-Men-Even-Once!-Since-1977 donate blood.
And they not only ask, if you answer honestly they won't take your blood.
OK, they'll take it, if you don't wanta look like a jerk at your Company Blood Drive, but they won't give it to anyone, even if they Haven't-Had-Sex-With-a-Man-Even-Once!-Since-1977
I don't know WHAT they do with it, probably throw it away...

Frank

JShizzle| 12.23.10 @ 10:16AM

If DADT was soooo important, why didn't the liberals push it instead of Obamacare? They had 2 years. But, just like Prop 13 in Cali...the elites who "know better than us stupid serfs" don't care about the will of the people. And while there is nothing "wrong" with Lame Duck Session legislation, it just shows that the liberal agenda can't win in a fair fight. Every liberal knows that the majority of this country doesn't follow their fascist leanings, so they must pass their laws utilizing stealth and falsehoods.

DRed| 12.23.10 @ 10:26AM

As far as I can tell, this bill was supported by a pretty substantial majority of the American people. I haven no idea why it took so long Congress to do something, but it's hardly the first time I've wondered that. In this case, it seems that it was the republicans in congress (who fillibustered this legislation) who don't care about the will of the people.

The pentagon studied this matter for months, there were two days of debate before the armed services committe, and there was debate in both houses of congress on the repeal. How is that using stealth? Orwell would be impressed by your ability to deny reality.

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 11:13AM

DRed, if they had studied it, had objective studies done, made the case with all the pros and cons, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The study was problematic to say the least. It certainly wasn't objective (I took the survey). They did it this way because they didn't want debate on it.

They treated the military, both gay and straight, as a political football. On both sides of the aisle they were more worked up about tax cuts and spending bills than they were about this.

There was a case to be made to keep DADT and a case for repeal. They had two years to discuss this and show everyone that it was a fair transparent process.

As an infantry officer, it showed me that the Congress doesn't really care about us unless they can use us for political paybacks and political points. This is how it will be when the wars are over and all the veterans (gay and straight) are costing the country money. They'll turn their backs on us again.

After all, who are we? Just a bunch of people who volunteered. And we weren't worth their time (2 days? Really? That's what we count for?) to do this the right way if it was proven this was the best thing to do. Every single military Joe and Jane should be very wary of how this was done. This "process" shows a lack of respect for each and every one of us as individuals and as an institution.

After all, we are just a bunch of people who do the fighting, bleeding, and dying.

DRed| 12.23.10 @ 12:02PM

Ted,

First off, for whatever it's worth, I've enjoyed reading your posts for the past couple days. Obviously, I don't agree with some of what you've had to say, but I think it's a credit to you that you're able to disagree respectfully.

As far as gays in the military goes, am I correct in assuming you wouldn't have a real problem with a gay soldier who goes about his job professionally?

And I agree with you, Congress sucks.

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 10:45AM

"Will of the people" like so much spittle to a Liberal. We know this from elections in CA. It might be the case that whatever block of Americans you are referring to:

1) Have no experience in the military and so run with a broad abstraction ignorant of the details

2) Have no clue what the real long-term objectives are because the elite and the media lack the integrity to come out...as it were...and state so

3) Are reluctant to respond with their true feelings since political correctness has such a string foothold.

the fun part is how those who understand what is really going on are going to fight back. Liberals should have no problem with this...they have always sought to undermine institutions that do not conform to their worldview/morality. well...the time will come to push back using the same justification.

Ret. Marine| 12.25.10 @ 10:10AM

As a daily reader of "white papers" coming in from the system I retired from I am left with this to remark. All ready there have been several request from "Commanding Officers" to accept their resignations in response to the repeal of the DADT policy. Now what a liar-n-thief to do with this news?
My own Son, a man who has served his Country for a decade and a half, talked about his distrust for this current regime as far back as a year ago, he came to me this past evening to tell me with the repeal of DADT, he's now looking for a way to "get put out" as he put it. And you know, I do not doubt him one bit. How well this is going to be for the readiness of the combat units is up for grabs but, I suspect this is going to be nothing short of a disaster for our armed forces. Better get used to the idea of protecting your own arse when the cult of pislam starts the head rolling and bomb throwing coming to a neighborhood near you. There may not be a ready unit to protect your immoral ass's but, heah what do I know, I only served 32-1/2 years towards the defense of these same innoral slaves to the system of the governed. Reap the wirlwind suckers. No disrespect intended there CARNOT. You are correct on all counts.

Trotter| 12.23.10 @ 10:39AM

"Were left-wing ideas as popular as they claim, liberals wouldn't need to advance them in such an underhanded way."

This lone sentence is really all that needed to be written. Sadly, the willful idiots like Purpleguy will conveniently ignore even an attempt at a cogent answer.

DRed| 12.23.10 @ 10:44AM

If you don't think repealing DADT was popular, explain away this:

http://tinyurl.com/2fojtce

Tell me, who is being willfully ignorant?

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 1:09PM

Gee, DRed, Purpleguy makes the case in an earlier comment. He says that being "freed from the pressures of re-election" allowed Congress to vote according to "Democratic principles." If we could put DADT up for a ballot initiative nationwide, would you agree to it? Be honest, repeal was released like a fart when you're just about to leave a room. Regardless, national popularity is less important than the existence of a nation to begin with. And you just risked that existence on what is most important -- your self gratification. And you somehow believe that a military that will now enshrine self gratification will be victorious in battle, when self sacrifice is tested the most? You, respectfully, are indeed willfully ignorant.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:54PM

It's shameful how you dishonor the service of gay members of the military as if they are second class citizens, incapable of the same sacrifices that their straight counterparts provide. They deserve our support just like any soldier. Shame on you. This is not a sexual issue as much as the homophobosphere wants it to be. It is an equality issue.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 2:09AM

Purple, it is evidently too much to ask of gay servicemen and women to restrain themselves. This is too much of a sacrifice. For me to point this out is factual. That you find it shameful or an "equality issue" shows that you are willing to gamble on the reaction of the 90% (or whatever percentage you wish to assign) of the force to placate the 10%. You assert that your sexuality is tremendously important to the lives of gays but deny that this is so for heterosexuals. You don't like labels like "fag?" Well, I could care less about yours, sincerely, call me anything you want. I prefer "bigot." Because what you will succeed in doing is exclude any bigot, regardless of their motivations (be it religion, natural revulsion, or generic hate) from the service because to express their sentiment in any way will be a career ender. You believe you can do without such people. You're gambling, but that's fine with me. There is a point where believing Christians, Jews and Muslims become (in your words) second class citizens. I look forward to our exemption from the draft, since we are not needed any more. Or you can draft bigots and risk fragging, etc. Good luck with all this. Not my problem any more.

Ron Epperson| 12.27.10 @ 4:34PM

DRed:

If you believe everything that you read on the internet, they you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny an Santa too. You fool!

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 10:43AM

This PC crap in the military is nothing new. There has been "diversity training" in the service for quite some time. The beginning of it started some time after Vietnam. I'll relate this story that my Dad told me about this nonsense.

During Vietnam, my Dad was one of two dentists on the Saratoga on Yankee Station. My Dad lost shipmates & good friends. Guys that flew off the boat & never came back. He also saw some pretty horriffic injuries. After Vietnam, my Dad was stationed at Annapolis. One day, he had the honor of working on Cdr. Jack Fellowes, a former guest at the Hanoi Hilton. He & my Dad got along very well, to the point where they even went & had drinks at the O Club later that evening.

A few weeks later, the word comes down from the powers that be that officers in all depts. were to undergo "sensitivity training." My Dad & Cdr. Fellowes were in the same "class" for this training session. At the front of the room, there was a civilian contractor with a reel to reel tape deck. He then told the assembled officers that this training would involve them having to hear things that they would find offensive & then discuss these things in a "rational" manner. He then played the tape on the reel to reel. The tape was of Hanoi Jane Fonda & her radio broadcasts from Hanoi & some of her more choice anti American screeds. Cdr. Fellowes stood up to leave the room. The civilian then told him that attendence of this class was mandatory & that he would be reported to his superiors if he didn't stay. Fellowes walked quietly to the front of the room, picked up the reel to reel from the table, & smashed it on the floor into a million little pieces. He then told the civilian that he could report him to whoever he wanted. That he would sit Captain's Mast if he had to, but that he WOULD NOT listen to Hanoi Jane. His words were something to the effect of "I was in prison for 6 & a half years & I had to listen to that b*tch. And I don't ever have to listen to that b*tch again." As he walked out of the room, the crowd of assembled officers stood up & clapped for him as he walked out.

This new crap with DADT being repealed is cut from the same cloth as those classes back then. Same social engineering tactic. So now, in addition to ALL the OTHER sensitivity training our troops undergo so as not to "offend" anyone, they'll have to have THAT MUCH MORE of it. Last I checked, the job of the military was to kill our enemies. Plain & simple. Its not to promote liberal ideas of "social justice."

Here's the skinny on Capt. Jack Fellowes (he retired as an O-6):

http://blog.usni.org/2010/05/0.....s-usn-ret/

John Navratil| 12.23.10 @ 10:51AM

NavyBrat,

Great story! PC is nothing more than a tyranny of thought.

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 11:01AM

It sure is. The term "Orwellian" comes to mind.

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 4:39PM

My hat is off to Capt. Jack..

Semper Fi..

jeff| 12.23.10 @ 11:43AM

I’m not a homophobe but I’m confused. Why are people saying that the repeal of DADT is a good thing when it’s too early to say if it is an improvement to military effectiveness? Our military is not ‘Meals on Wheels’. It is tasked with winning wars. The only change the military should ever make is one that increases the likelihood of military victory. It’s too soon to tell whether repealing DADT will facilitate military victory and therefore we shouldn’t be calling it a good thing. In fact we should remain unconvinced that repealing DADT is an improvement. And if we don’t win wars more quickly than repealing DADT will NOT have been a good thing. It will have had no effect or worse it could have a negative effect. Can you imagine our Drill Sergeants having to go through ‘Diversity and Homosexual Sensitivity Training’? The notion is ridiculous.

Let us not forget that the original Wiki Leaks leaker is a homosexual male who was unhappy with the fact that his fellow military men were not gay or ‘gay-friendly’ enough. So he exposed classified information to the world.

hunter| 12.23.10 @ 12:42PM

Right on Jeff. That is exactly why dadt passed, so more devasting leaks would be curtailed. Wiki leaker blackmailed them, and they broke and gave in.

Richard| 12.23.10 @ 12:56PM

Obama is a come-back kid, guys. Watch out. When the newly-elected Neanderthals come to Washington hopefully he will deal with them as they desrve.

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 1:46PM

Yeah. Sure junior. Let's see how he can "deal with them" when they have the purse strings. What a good little Bolshevik you are.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:57PM

Once passed, funds are allocated per the President's discretion - GW showed us how. Even if not for the intended purpose. The Congress controls the purse to authorize the funding, but not the distribution of the funds.

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 4:44PM

YES, and G.W. is just as big of an ASSHOLE as that turd presently in the White House!

Jeff| 12.23.10 @ 1:42PM

Purpleguy,

It must be hard to be you - a "know it all" whom is disliked by most people. A true liberal or shall I say progressive!

I'm sure you hate hearing this, but, Merry Christmas!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:30PM

Not at all, same back at ya! Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, and Happy Ramadan.
Not really liberal though, but on here, I'm pretty blue I'm sure. I'm really an independent, but far left of many on here.

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 2:33PM

So you're really Violetman.

MattZ| 12.23.10 @ 1:45PM

"Were left-wing ideas as popular as they claim, liberals wouldn't need to advance them in such an underhanded way. "

Yes, passing legislation through the US Senate certainly seems a fair amount more tawdry than it used to, doesn't it?

When a sweeping majority of the US electorate approves of a sane policy, only the Wingnuts here would give approval to the notion that it's somehow controversial. In truth, it's only controversial to the far-right stalwarts in the GOP caucus.
MZ

Steve A| 12.23.10 @ 2:02PM

Richard, You funny man. The guy just got absolutely smoked in the last election on 11/02. He pushes thru some garbage legislation in a lame duck & suddenly he is superman. Get a grip.

PS: Here is my take on DADT. Gays want to serve, fine, no problem. My concern is this: This applies to both gays & females in combat situations: Is it likely that a CO's judgement could be impacted negatively by a romantic relationship in a combat scenario when he/she is in a position to have to decide to send the significant other in harms way?? In other words, if Bob loves Ted & all in the unit know this cuz they hold hands between skirmishes, & Bob shuffles Ted back from harms way, what does this do for morale. Same applies in a hetero relationship.

Further, I feel that both gays & females are quite capeable of service, but it should be relegated to non combat for this very reason. Just my humble opinion.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:31PM

Never been in the military, have you?

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 4:49PM

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:31PM
Never been in the military

DUH!!! No shit Sherlock.. You should try it Purplejig..

Jackson Hole| 12.23.10 @ 2:22PM

Golly-gee whiz! Sure am glad the US isn't fundin' the costs of 1st responder compensation package! Just vote on it, and it will take care of itself. Somehow. Now don't take me wrongly, but those dudes has about the best insurance policy in the word, and great compensation already, but a little more, 4 billion smackers, can't do nothing but help. Wow! Sure wish I could've been that lucky. That's why you and your rescue group have to be summoned up as resources. Once you're logged in by the resource manager you're home scott free if you get injured.

The Chinks picking up the cost to make sure those upstanding citizens get what they deserve. Imagine that, after all, I'm sure Obumer isn't getting his funds for projects like that out of a sack buried under the woodpile. We've got tons of money, why just ask Purple Dude. Spend, spend, spend. But I can rest easy, cause the price of the compensation package was up around 8-10 billion. Can't sleep well knowing it was that much now can I.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:33PM

Spend yes, but raise our taxes, yes ... that's how it goes. You want to spend, you have to pay. Republicans won't change that - they never have.

Jackson Hole| 12.24.10 @ 9:49AM

Yep, the government, Republicans too, are gonna squeeze and squeeze until the tax payin' public looks like they've just stepped out of a Nazi oven, maybe worse. Democrats will never change neither.

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 6:58PM

Wow, we agree on something.!

George True| 12.23.10 @ 3:27PM

I admit it, the trolls finally got to me the last several days. That is why I have placed a dozen responses to Purpleguy today asking him why he is here. I apologize to all for the annoyance, for it was unnecessary, because I already know the answer. He is here to disrupt, as opposed to contributing to an earnest exchanging of ideas.

It is a well known modus operandi. The troll makes an inflammatory comment, supported by no evidence whatsoever (or bogus evidence) and well-intentioned people respond with reasoned, logical arguments supported with irrefutable evidence. The troll never actually refutes the evidence. He just throws out another red herring talking point, eliciting yet more sincere and reasoned responses. He will do this all day, without ever once backing up his talking points, or without ever once successfully poking any holes in the well reasoned responses.

He is certainly not going to make any converts here. Not because our minds are not open to new ideas or new evidence. But simply because we have a mountain of empirical evidence on our side, and he has nothing but mindless talking points with little if any basis in fact or in truth.

So why engage in such a pointless exercise in the first place? From his standpoint, the only real purpose is to disrupt. In other words, not to contribute to the exchange and discussion of ideas, but to derail it if possible.

I have been as guilty as anyone of taking the bait and following the troll down the rabbit hole. I am just so sick to death of leftists in general and Democrats in particular forbidding and preventing ANY real or substantive debate of any kind on an issue before it is voted on. As several other commenters here have pointed out today, the Dems have had two full years to have a complete airing and discussion of the issues of DADT, DREAM, and tax rates. Not once, not ever, have they even allowed any debate or exchange of ideas to take place EVER on these issues. Same with health care.

This constitutes a fundamental breach of good faith. And that is why I am disgusted at the RINO's for caving on these issues, and why I see that there can be NO compromise with Dems on ANYTHING,EVER until this fundamental issue of their lack of good faith is addressed first.

It should not be difficult at all for the Repubs to simply state to the Dems, as a matter of inviolable principle, that "We will not allow any vote to take place on ANYTHING ever again, until first the issue is addressed of your fundamental lack of good faith evidenced by your continuing refusal to engage in an actual debate of the relative merits of an issue." Period.

I am just so sick of the fundamental dishonesty of it all. And sites like this one are a microcosm of this dishonesty and disrespect practiced by the Dems on capitol hill. Their brainwashed minions come here and engage in this same disrespect for others who HAVE come her in good faith to exchange and discuss ideas.

We can either just agree not to feed the trolls anymore, or we can simply start calling them out from now on. But I for one am not going to sit by anymore and allow the trolls to hijack meaningful debate. Because like their Democrat masters, when they do this they are essentially saying we will do whatever we want and we do not even care to know why reasonable people might disagree. In so many words, they are coming here to say EFF U to each and every one of us here who DO come to have a real exchange of ideas. And I for one will simply not abide this anymore.

A blessed Christmas to you all.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.23.10 @ 3:58PM

George,
Heh, I have begun saying ..."we can't fix stupid here, sorry." or words to that effect.

As my responses become routine, perhaps we can all just say....."stuck on stupid". That isn't hard to type...even with my wierd fingers..(smile)
Merry Christmas

NavyBrat | 12.23.10 @ 3:59PM

While I agree that I'm torn between ignoring these shat for brains trolls, pukes like Purple just deserve to be smacked down for their insipid comments. Not to make them "see the light," so to speak, but to show them for what utter imbeciles they are. Now, one might think that their words do a good enough job of that already. But when they come here (or on Townhall, which is the other site I'm on frequently) & start in on how much "smarter" & "tolerant" they are than the rest of us, its just too much. I'll play whack-a-troll any day of the week. Its just TOO easy.

Here's wishing G*d's blessings on all my brothers & sisters here at Am Spec for this Christmas & the New Year.

George True| 12.23.10 @ 4:36PM

Ken: Stuck on stupid probably sums it up about as well as anything. It's actually quite eloquent.

Navy: "whack a troll"....Now that's funny! Thanks for making me laugh.

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:39PM

Thanks, Feliz Navidad y Prospero Ano Nuevo!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:37PM

So, what's the issue you want to discuss - me?

If you really followed my posts over the months, you would know that I typically add links to factual evidence to support my positions... but I must admit on Xmas vacation, I got lazy ..
When I am not feeling lazy then you can shut up and try and refute the facts. others on here know this, but i don't know where you've been until recently.
The next 2 years is sure to be chock full of fodder for all sides of the issues... Contrary to your dismissive name calling of troll, you will see.... when I feel like engaging you in cogent, lucid discussion... but not on your command, for sure.

George True| 12.24.10 @ 11:47AM

"...you can shut up and try to refute the facts."

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are the facts, and as Ben Franklin said, they are stubborn things. You present things as "facts" that are more like factoids, and typically do not stand up to close scrutiny. And when someone presents empirical, fact-checkable evidence to the contrary, you then go ninety degrees in another direction. Then other commenters present reasoned responses, and you then turn on a dime and go in yet another direction. No ideas ever get explored. And when you do this dozens of times throughout a thread, then it begins to look like willfully disruptive behavior.

There is another long-time poster that everybody here knows, Alan Brooks. Lately Alan's comments have seemed mostly incoherent, which makes me wonder if something happened to him. Alan has been all over the map in the past, so to this day I don't really know if Alan is a leftist, a libertarian, an ultra conservative, an anarchist, or a combination of the above. Even though I disagree with him probably 80% of the time, Alan had the ability once in a while to really make you think, and cause you to re-examine what you believe, and why. Now THAT, my friend, is real exchange of thoughts, and it is how this forum was intended to function.

"The next 2 years is sure to be chocked full of fodder for all sides of the issues..."

Indeed! So instead of using 'fodder' to support your ideological position (anybody can do that, even conservatives) why not have an earnest exchange of ideas and an examination of the pros and cons of a given issue?

I never dismiss someone as a troll because they disagree with me. It;s just that you seem to throw out one red herring after another. Maybe you like to stir the pot. But I see it as counterproductive to meaningful exchange of ideas and information, which is what this forum is for. Nobody said you have to do it on command. But instead of engaging in non-sequitors, how about a substantive exploration of a topic, with the purpose to arrive at the empirical truth, regardless where that might lead? You just might find it fulfilling. I urge you to think about it.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 2:11AM

George, it's "non sequitur" with a "u" -- not an "o."

disgustedlady| 12.23.10 @ 3:55PM

The keep calling themselves a minority in order to claim rights to their behavior. Rights are reserved for minorities based on genetic makeup (gender, race). Not behavior. Deviant moral behavior isn't protected such as from murderers, rapists, thieves, incest, child molestation, etc. Do they all deserve to do what makes them happy? No, of course not. Society decides what is immoral and the majority says homosexuality isn't.

Intelligent Design| 12.23.10 @ 6:32PM

Watch for demagogue Obama to claim credit for the "tax cuts" (meaning continuation of the Bush cuts) even though he was completely opposed to the cuts and would have let them expire if Democrats had not been soundly defeated in November.

The new Congress needs to defund the Demo-Socialist agenda.

I expect there will be fewer young Americans willing to volunteer for Barney Frank's Army, and many currently serving will get out ASAP.

alexc| 12.23.10 @ 7:41PM

Everybody knows jesus was a faggot. Him and his cocksucking buddies anointing each others feet. At least your sack of shit savior can serve in the army now!

alexc| 12.23.10 @ 8:07PM

@navybrat

Are you kidding me? Could you possibly be more of a stereotype? You've never served, but you're an expert on the military because you're faggot father was a dentist! In the navy! Too funny! I bet he loved sticking his tool in all those guys mouths!

George True| 12.23.10 @ 8:10PM

Do you eat with that mouth? For your sake I hope not.

alexc| 12.23.10 @ 8:20PM

Georgie boy, if your pig skank mother can eat with her mouth after all the diseased cock she's had in it, I don't think typing will have any ill effects on me.

George True| 12.24.10 @ 11:53AM

Projecting, are we?

Balios| 12.23.10 @ 9:03PM

Hi. Down here in Texas there is the interesting opinion that OBama is preparing to introduce the draft again. He is obviously unconcerned with the welfare of the troops or making any contribution in the Eastern wars so I imagine there will be a collapse in the number of young volunteers with the perception that the military is a gay friendly institution. Some one said the draft is cheaper. Take that, young leftists. I agree, too, that OBama seems to be a mole and/or a traitor. I would love to see the Reps hold impeachment over his head to force him to sign in more rational policies. They sure have legal cause.

MikeD| 12.24.10 @ 1:31PM

But not the votes or the balls.

alexc| 12.23.10 @ 9:16PM

@navybrat

Did cmr fellowes sit on your fathers captain mast? I bet they both loved the hell out of that.

Mo| 12.23.10 @ 10:20PM

Thank you for this article. I will be passing it along.

Phil Kearny| 12.23.10 @ 11:35PM

We must defeat this cocky son of a bitch that fooled us into electing him before it's too late. His goal is to remake this nation into something we don't want and won't recognize - in short, to destroy it. He and his party of weakness and failure must be stopped!

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 11:41PM

Guess they showed you in the last month, huh?

George True| 12.24.10 @ 11:54AM

How does this comment contribute to a meaningful discussion?

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 7:01PM

If you really have been reading my posts you should note that a well thought out lucid argument can beget one of my own. But name-calling or hurtful, degrading words, simply get retorts of sarcasm or vengeance from me.

George True| 12.26.10 @ 10:43AM

So..... is "Guess they showed you in the last month, huh" a well thought out, lucid argument?

Also, I challenge you to find even one of my posts where I have called you any names or used hurtful or degrading words.,

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 5:03PM

Picking my words out of context, when I am clearly being sarcastic while answering another's ridiculous diatribes, hardly constitutes meaningful discussion on your part - nor do your incessant questions of "why are you here? " You really should ask yourself the same question - are you looking for corroboration from like-minded that your viewpoints are valid, accepted and generally okay? I'm sure you can't ascribe that psychological need to me. You may need the comfort and safety of others' like opinions around you for safety - but I clearly don't. I am confident in my own beliefs and opinions, however, there is a glaring lack of facts here that sorely needs some facts, which I will provide - and so should you.
Stop your smarmy queries and actually add to the discourse, with facts if you can, opinions are good too.

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 7:13PM

Apparently, Purpleguy didn't get that memo.

"On the tax deal, the president gave up more than Republicans to ensure that he and his party didn't get blamed for a hike in taxes for all Americans that they failed to stop before the elections."
"Republicans won on spending, forcing enactment of a short-term resolution keeping the government funded into March rather than an earmark-pocked trillion-dollar-plus omnibus appropriations bill running through September. That victory reflected popular displeasure with spending in general and earmarks in particular.

They also prevailed in blocking the DREAM Act, which would have given a path to citizenship to certain children of illegal immigrants who serve in the military or complete two years at a four-year college. The Republican base was dead-set against it, and the GOP held firm."

Ret. Marine| 12.25.10 @ 10:27AM

Clint please stop with the p/c ( pussies cult) talk, these are not illegal immigrants, they are in fact illegal aliens. Don't feed the trolls into thinking they have the upper hand in the discussion. Thanks. Pledge for the new year, stop with the misuse of the pussies cults words, they have meaning stick to them.

Clint| 12.26.10 @ 8:56AM

That was a quote marine. I call them "Illegal Invaders".

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 5:05PM

Is there any reason you can think of why so many here are so upset with the lameduck session, if the "R"s got so much legislation they wanted?
I have a different opinion then you, but that's okay, we both agree the lameduck session was a success!

alexc| 12.27.10 @ 11:52AM

Hi pretty boy! How was xmas?

alexc| 12.24.10 @ 3:08AM

So does this mean navybrats faggot welfare queen piece of shit father will stop sucking off the public teat and actually go out and get a private sector job? Of course not! White trash trailer park shit will still be worthlesss!

George True| 12.24.10 @ 11:55AM

You're really boring me.

Nego X| 12.24.10 @ 7:08PM

alexc, You must have been educated in public school by leftists. So much for you bogus tolerance that you demand of others.

martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 8:01AM

We just had an election and the Republican party gained big time not only in Congress but in many local districts. Yet within the Republican side so called are a number of RINOS who apparently do not care and the leadership of the Republican Party who say they heard the voters but I question that. These are "undemocratic" tendencies" which are just as bad as the Socialists Democrats. Thus, I consider myself a Tea Party Symp and do not consider myself bound to either major party. I believe it is the Tea Party Movement that has the potential to keep Democracy alive in our country.
Som one has to stop the Politically Correct BS, cut thru the crap, confront destructive economic and other national security matters and ask for straight answers !!!!!!!!!!!!! That means calling out all who trample on the voters: Obama,Pelosi,Reid,McConnell,,Boehner,Snow,Lugar, L. Graham ,Mirkowski and the lot.

Marc Jeric| 12.24.10 @ 2:30PM

A young soldier who refuses the attention of his commanding gay officer will see a lot of latrine assignments, let alone of night patrols in enemy territories. Let us wait a few years to read of alarming increase of HIV/AIDS infection rates.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 5:08PM

OMG - the Armed Forces will never survive - they have no experience with anything like that!
How dumb can you be? Go learn something about women in the Armed Forces ...

Purple Lips| 12.24.10 @ 2:48PM

Men are not measured by thier sexual depravity. Homos defined themselves by their predilication to commit sodomy among other perversions. The late William Buckley once quipped to the late Joe Sobran, "We should tatoo on the buttocks of all queers, " Abandon hope all ye who enter here!"

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 7:03PM

Lucky for us, his son Christopher did not fall far from that rotten, right-wing tree.

martin j smith| 12.24.10 @ 3:17PM

Bewary of posters who post material that can be used by enemies of Conservatives. You can disagree with the policy of DaDt but at least use words that show that there is cerebral material up there. And, I do NOT TRUST AT ALL THE ABOVE POSTERS. BE CAREFUL OF SABATEURS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yosemeti Sam| 12.24.10 @ 3:35PM

Yo, AS webmaster - how about the gift of password
implementation?

Huh?

Brian| 12.24.10 @ 4:39PM

Yet another excellent column by George Neumayr.

Jim Hlavac | 12.24.10 @ 7:44PM

Yes, yes, alright already, I'll admit it -- it was a plan from the beginning -- yes the very beginning -- every gay boy knew, at the age of 8 or 9, that he was choosing a lifestyle to bring the country to its knees by demanding acceptance and thereby causing the rapacious and murderous ways of all the heteros. For if we hadn't demanded good will towards us -- you all would be peaceful.

We knew, yes, we all knew at 11 or 12 that we were going to destroy marriage by causing your divorces and adultery. We knew, as boys barely shaving, that we would cause the abortion and the pillage. We engineered at the age of 15 the teenage pregnancies and the fathers who abandon their own progeny.

We knew as tender tots that we would destroy the Social Security system and bring an insurmountable debt and deficit to the nation.

Yes, this is what we endeavored to do the first time we espied a naked boy in the gym locker room -- Wreck It ALL!

We knew, as youths even, that we would work together, though we didn't even know another of us existed, for the destruction of society, the nation and the military.

We went and found each other in a vast conspiracy of society haters to bring desolation and bereavement to the land. We decided to buck all reality and God and be unnatural -- so as to demonize ourselves -- and then, nefariously, brilliantly so, force you to accept us so that we might wreck the money, wreck the economy, cause our national enemies to hate us in the first place.

Yes, yes, we admit, we sissies do -- we are simply the Devil's work to utterly destroy the earth and all that dwell upon it. Why, be securing a modesty of sullen tolerance in the 2010s we made Marx write his screed in the 1840s. For we are powerful people -- able to affect the past. Why, Hitler himself might be blamed on gay people allowed to hold hands in public. Such is the horror of our existence.

We started, as mere 12 year olds to plan and plot to bring the various and sundry problems to this nation. We were insistent, at age of 13, that we would bring havoc to the foreign affairs of this nation and its national security. We determined, by 14, to utterly wreck every institution every to grace this human planet, so as to effect some powerful plan to make you all queer.

Yes, we gay folks even created liberals to torment you with socialism. We gay folks, way back then, in 1969, when we first and last rioted to be left alone -- that's when we choose Obama to be the horrendous president he is.

Yes, yes, OK, you caught us -- we 5% of the population choose to be queers and fags, homos and sissies to utterly wreck all that was pure and good and Godly.

For we were somehow pissed off that we didn't get the Christmas gift we really wanted when we were 4 or 5 or something.

Sure, sure. And did you know unicorns were a dime a dozen this Christmas Season?

Merry Christmas, but really folks, get a grip.

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 2:19AM

Jim, well said. It's in the nature of sin to justify itself. The military was the last meaningful holdout of what Purple calls inequality. To accomplish this, y'all have re-prioritized America's values from religion-based to pleasure-based. Don't sell yourself short on this. In your sarcastic way, you've captured what you've actually done. This is no minor tweak. You will change values on a massive scale, yet think that the outcome will be the same (or probably better!) than before. And if things go south? Well, blame the bigots. There are new scapegoats in the land, people like me. Thank you for the Merry Christmas, enjoy your Brave New World this New Year's.

Dante| 12.24.10 @ 8:15PM

OMG, and here I thought the homophobic cauldron was the hottest on Townhall.com. Some of you religious bigots and social troglodytes take the cake; such a surprise considering that The American Spectator is reputed to have reasonably intelligent readers.

I wonder how long it is going to take you to realize that while the classic Left may want the US Military to be less brazen in its foreign policy executions, it certainly doesn't want to leave the country absolutely defenseless like some of your inane comments directly describe Nor does the Left desire an actual socialist state, as you seem to ever so frequently claim. Understandably, they do want more government involvement when they see the free market fail miserably (as in healthcare or with financial deregulation), but particularly when ingrained bigotry and discrimination continue to run rampant in the country, as in the case of DADT and the bans across most the country towards gay marriage. (If you recall, that was why the Civil Rights Act was so important in the 1960's, when the culture was all too slow to change.)

Fortunately, time has a way of correcting all the country‘s mistakes and healing its sorest wounds. Hopefully, it will do the same for your souls as you grapple with the inevitability of DADT's repeal and someday the ability of any gay person to have all the same rights as any straight one.

For the record, I am a very happily married, religious straight man, who despise much of the liberal agenda, save for its social platform. But go ahead and call me any liberal name you want, you will again be just as wrong as you have been in your comments here.

Merry Christmas!

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 2:30AM

Dante, well-written. You're right, the rhetoric can get hot here. But the people you find offensive are Americans, and while you may be "above" such prejudice, you may be in denial about its source. It may actually be natural, healthy and appropriate to be viscerally repulsed by "gay" people. Why deny this? After all, you seem to assert that it is natural, healthy, and appropriate to be gay. Gays claim their behavior is genetic. What if "bigotry" is? How many re-education camps are you planning on opening. How many believing Christians, Jews and Muslims are you going to persecute? There are choices to be made here, as much as you want to change America's values and then say what you're doing is value neutral, that's just not an available option. Even worse, if the God of the Bible really exists, there might be a problem here. But today is your day, the day of the reasonable man. Me, I "will again be just as wrong" as I have been in my comments here. Merry Christ-with-no-Bible-mas.

RCV| 12.25.10 @ 12:15AM

There is nothing " undemocratic" about elected representatives passing legislation by substantial majorities during their terms of office, especially legislation like DADT repeal, the StartII Treaty,and tax cut and unemployment assistance that is supported by the majority of the American people. If you want to use the term, it's more apt for a minority blocking the majority from acting on popular legislation, something the obstructionists in the GOP have been doing for far too long.

Roger| 12.25.10 @ 12:48AM

OBAMA FULFILLING THE BIBLE

Here are some Bible verses that Pres. Obama avoids:
Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): "It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury - how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!"
Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under "a servant who becomes king."
And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: "let thy words be few...a fool's voice is known by multitude of words."
Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he's destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!
For more on the Obamas and their fellow subversives, Google "Michelle Obama's Allah-day," "Obama Supports Public Depravity," "David Letterman's Hate, Etc." and also "Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Sarah Silverman."
PS - Since Christians are commanded to ask God to send severe judgment on persons who commit and support the worst forms of evil (see I Cor. 5 and note "taken away"), Christians everywhere should constantly pray that the Lord will soon "take away" or at least overthrow all US leaders, including Obama, who continue to sear their conscience and arrogantly trample the God-given rights of the majority including the rights of the unborn. Do we need a second American Revolution?

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 5:12PM

Wow! are you way out there .. are you sure you live on planet Earth?

For the record, everything you read on the Internet is not factual - there is no fact-checking Internet fairy. Gobble all the lies you want, but be aware you are appearing to have no brain whatsoever.

wodiej| 12.25.10 @ 7:42AM

Don't Ask Don't Tell...one of the stupidest things Clinton passed. I don't know anything about the behavior of gay military personnel. But I doubt they joined for the gay agenda and therefore are not going to go around and try to convert others. All gay people are not the "in your face" type. Personally I don't know why anyone would put their lives on the line for homophobes.

martin j smith| 12.25.10 @ 8:21AM

In my view both DaDt and the so called Start Treaty were not "victories" for Obama. In fact with regard the former, there is a double edged sword for Obama. In my view because of his desire to have close relations with islam the matter of showing this nations "acceptance of gays as fellow citizens" actually fly in the face of Islam and its leaders. They are tolerant of nothing. The other side of the coin is the question of how it will work out in practice in the military. Time will tell. Overall this issue is not ammajor motivator for the vast majority of voters except gays and the Left in some cases. Similarly with the Start treaty. The two signatories are neither standard bearers of virtue. Sort of like Hitler and Stalin in 1939. I strongly suspect in the near future both sides will accuse each other of breaking their side of the bargain and poof, there it goes.
The more significant issues of concern at least for me was that Omnibus bill and the Dream Act both went down.

Those who are fixated on Gays should get help.
If you really ar3 concerned about the side who the majority of Americans voted for it is the Tea Party not the Repubs per se. And that was about Big Government and the Economy !!!! Focus on winning in 2012. Those who post fixations on Gays I wonder about you.

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.25.10 @ 8:47AM

This is what you get, when you elect a guy who started his Political Career in the Living room of two DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. In the Living Room of two people who KILLED Police Officers, BLEW UP Recruiting Stations, and BOMBED the Pentagon. A Commander In Chief who HATES the Military.
Do these Girl/Men bunk with the Real Men? Do the Girl/Men shower with the Real Men? How is that any different than the Real Men bunking and showering with the Real Women?
Do the Girl/Men get to wear Makeup on Duty, like the Real Women? Do they get to wear Women's Clothes when they're NOT on Duty? Can they wear Dresses to the Enlisted Man's Club? Will they be "Making out" at the Enlisted Man's Club.
The DOMESTIC ENEMY in the White House doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency. He's Shut Down our means to retrieve OUR OWN sources of Energy. He doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency. He will drive more and more Industry from our shores with his Cap and Trade Regulations. With his Soviet Style Health Care System. With his CARD CHECK Legislation for his Union Brown Shirts. He doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency.
There will be confrontations, as the Real Men's sensibilities are accosted by the Gay Men's Proclivities. There WILL be a push back. There WILL be Violence. And this guy will come down HARD on the REAL MEN. On the WARRIORS who keep this Country SAFE. And there will be a push back.
Retention Rates will fall off the cliff. Enlistments by the REAL MEN will fall off the cliff. And the GAYS will swarm to the Recruiter's office like it was a Bath House in Provincetown. Our Military cohesiveness will be DESTROYED. But, then, that has ALWAYS been the plan.
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.
It's like the nose on your face.
It's Christmas morning. I believe in the GOODNESS and the HOPE that CHRIST brings.
Only a fool would discount the other side of the coin.
There is Evil all over this world. WHO would, by his Words and deeds, do everything in his power, to WEAKEN the only Country that stands against it?
Isn't it obvious?

Timothy L. Pennell| 12.25.10 @ 8:48AM

This is what you get, when you elect a guy who started his Political Career in the Living room of two DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. In the Living Room of two people who KILLED Police Officers, BLEW UP Recruiting Stations, and BOMBED the Pentagon. A Commander In Chief who HATES the Military.
Do these Girl/Men bunk with the Real Men? Do the Girl/Men shower with the Real Men? How is that any different than the Real Men bunking and showering with the Real Women?
Do the Girl/Men get to wear Makeup on Duty, like the Real Women? Do they get to wear Women's Clothes when they're NOT on Duty? Can they wear Dresses to the Enlisted Man's Club? Will they be "Making out" at the Enlisted Man's Club.
The DOMESTIC ENEMY in the White House doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency. He's Shut Down our means to retrieve OUR OWN sources of Energy. He doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency. He will drive more and more Industry from our shores with his Cap and Trade Regulations. With his Soviet Style Health Care System. With his CARD CHECK Legislation for his Union Brown Shirts. He doesn't care. It's all about VOTES from a Democrat constituency.
There will be confrontations, as the Real Men's sensibilities are accosted by the Gay Men's Proclivities. There WILL be a push back. There WILL be Violence. And this guy will come down HARD on the REAL MEN. On the WARRIORS who keep this Country SAFE. And there will be a push back.
Retention Rates will fall off the cliff. Enlistments by the REAL MEN will fall off the cliff. And the GAYS will swarm to the Recruiter's office like it was a Bath House in Provincetown. Our Military cohesiveness will be DESTROYED. But, then, that has ALWAYS been the plan.
"And I saw the BEAST rise from the Sea. And he was given a MOUTH, to speak Haughty and Blasphemous words. And he was allowed to exercise authority for forty two months." Revelation 13-5.
It's like the nose on your face.
It's Christmas morning. I believe in the GOODNESS and the HOPE that CHRIST brings.
Only a fool would discount the other side of the coin.
There is Evil all over this world. WHO would, by his Words and deeds, do everything in his power, to WEAKEN the only Country that stands against it?
Isn't it obvious?

Larry| 12.25.10 @ 12:08PM

Ah, yes, Purpleguy, cite the Bible every time. That'll make you new friends for sure. In fact some of the Bible quotations you cited are even better arguments for DADT than you could have ever realized. But, judge not, because now the U.S. military will be judged on the political correctness front every day.

Blegoo| 12.25.10 @ 3:00PM

Looks like nobody's considering the point that the army is a volunteer based organization, not a conscription/mandatory/forced one.
Since we are admitting gays for serving in the military, why stop here?
Embrace and encourage other minorities as well:

• Bisexuals and transgenders.
• Paraplegics and quadriplegics.
• Persons with psychic conditions, such as schizophrenics, epileptics, etc.
• All kind of minorities, regardless of classification, race, religion, personal beliefs, iq... in short, anything goes.

After all... if the constitution says: "All men are created equal..."

Tom in Michigan| 12.25.10 @ 4:59PM

No, it is a "manipulative and arrogant" evil as it undermines democratic principles in its relentless quest for power.

The real losers though are those misguided souls who support the left believing that somehow, though they are in no way members of the Party/government/media/academic elite there will be a place at the elitist table for them. As history has shown time and again, they'll be cast aside once their useful idiocy is spent. Think: Cindy Sheehan.

BOBR| 12.25.10 @ 7:07PM

The lame duck congress was more a commentary on the Republican party's fear of the upcoming congress than the Democrat success in passing the objectionable legislation. The bills were passed by RINO's who see their power slipping away with the freshmen coming in January.

Rozaroad| 12.25.10 @ 7:17PM

Calm down, everyone.

The pourpose of the article was to point out that the current administration is using undemocratic means to force unwanted and unnecessary reform on the military and on the country. A debate over who is or is not going to hell is not useful.

DADT is no longer policy, but like everything else passed through the lame-duck session, it will be subject to review in the new congress, and, hopefully, by a new presidents (in 2015).

If the recent electoral trend continues and if the new congress sticks to its guns, all will be well. If not, we're all going to hell in a handbasket, together!

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 11:53PM

The sky is falling, the sky is falling ... much ado about nothing re: DADT.
As for undemocratic means - how's that? A duly elected Congress serves 2 years, and they have the responsibility and authority to pass legislation as the voters who elected them to represent those voters expect. The fact it was during the lame duck session is a problem according to whom - the press, Rush, Fox, you? That's immaterial but fodder for commentary, and that is all.

Marc Jeric| 12.26.10 @ 12:18PM

Let us wait a while and see the HIV/AIDS statistics from the military. How shall a young soldier resist the invitation from his commanding officer to engage in a little fun&games; in the showers? Will he risk to be sent on dangerous solitary night patrol into enemy territory?

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 11:56PM

You don't think much of the soldiers that protect you and your country do you? You believe they are that weak?
You could say the same thing about a female soldier with her commanding officer - both are wrong and not condoned, and in fact a court martial offense.
Again, you think your military is that weak?

Dale Cord| 12.26.10 @ 12:25PM

Homosexuals and Lesbians are what they are, and they will defend their acts of perversion and rebellion against their Creator, to the death and an a early and permanent residence in the "graveyards" of the world! Facts and statistics don't lie. AIDS,SYPHILIS,GONORRHEA, etc to name just a few are the plagues of immoral sexual behavior. The death toll continues to mount in the Homosexual communities throughout the world at large, even as we labor in our inept and feeble attempts here, to try with the logical reality of it all ,to reach that same mentality of those who were blinded at the gates of Lots home,while trying to have sex with the two angels sent as warnings to Lots family, to leave Sodom before God's warnings of "VENGEANCE IS MINE" became a reality, and the perversions of that city became ashes . No sound reasoning or known facts based on truth will be an adequate answer to a demonized mind. The stench of billions of human beings who have gone the way of Sodom and Gomorrah ,and now lay rotting in hospitals should have reached the brain through the nostrils of those, who continue to defend such defiance against God and humanity. Let them all die the death prescribed for Infidels, and Our Creator will sort them out at judgment day as they gnash and grind their teeth with unacceptable excuses for their conduct, on their way to the lake of fire and eternal death. If it had been up to me,I never would have saved Noah and his family in the first place! End of discussion "PERIOD"

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 11:56PM

Well now, enjoy the 9th circle of H* - the lowest level reserved for blasphemers. You're judging God's judgements. Really? Really? Bye, and that's a PERIOD.

RCV| 12.27.10 @ 11:54AM

Well, thank God that God is God, and you are..... well, we can all tell what you are by your post.

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 5:15PM

Well now, enjoy the 9th circle of H* - the lowest level reserved for blasphemers. You're judging God's judgements. Really? Really? Bye, PERIOD.

RationalRey| 12.27.10 @ 11:35AM

May God have mercy on your soul George.

Dale Cord | 12.27.10 @ 1:58PM

I suggest that Purpleguy calls his doctor to have his medications changed as soon as possible, and let me guess as to why he calls himself"Purpleguy". Probably because of the lack of oxygen to the brain,would cause a purple discoloration of the skin, but with a brain as small as he has exhibited here in this forum.I wouldn't be in error to say he probably needs confinement and much observation for his meaningless babbling. Maybe an exorcist will be of much help to him.

Dale Cord| 12.28.10 @ 12:30PM

2011 a year that will live in Infamy. Future school history books will read: The year the Muslims conquered the United States of America. With not so much as a whimper from its cowardly military leaders, and name calling armchair patriots. Disgraceful,Shameful there are no words to adequately describe her defeat. As the 300 Spartans strength and ingenuity conquered all of those who challenged them, so a small band of renegades conquered the greatest country the world has known. When Davids rock slued Goliath. It also foretold a warning. "The bigger they are,the harder they Fall." Our country lost its battle of survival when it became intoxicated with its deceptive mentality, that it did not need its Creator anymore, and wisdom no longer was apart of its citizens physiology to survive

vip2020 | 12.28.10 @ 6:35PM

Thanks a lot for this article! I will surely visit your site again

mzk1| 12.29.10 @ 2:28AM

DADT is a horrible idea. We should keep it only for those let it under it, and go back to the outright ban.

Since everyone talks about how it is here in Israel, I asked a friend. My understanding was that we do not have open showers. Would it be so hard to put in stalls?

Myke| 12.29.10 @ 4:56PM

B.O's agenda is going according to plan. He will do exactly what he needs to do to destroy America. Do you think that Countrywide , Frannie Mae and FreddieMac didn't know what would happen if they sold homes to people who couldn't pay for them. To people with no jobs, no money, illegals, etc. Of course they knew. Do you think all the jobs being outsourced was by accident? Do you think Bill Gates laying off American workers and hiring Visa workers is by accident? Do you think them not protecting our borders is because of compassion for the illegals. For decades they have let let growers, etc exploit illegals for slaves wages and unhealthy working conditions. Where has their compassion been. Do you think that big business is backing B.O because they want to pay the illegals higher wages? Do you think they spend billions a yr on illegals because they have compassion? They spend your taxes on illegals while they overcrowd our schools, our hospitals, our roads. Hospitals are going broke treating illegals. They get free dental and vision which Americans who are on welfare or Medicaid don't get. Where is the compassion for these people.
They are costing billions in court costs, prisons, jails and attorneys. Even translators in courts. All of this is to destroy America and turn us into a third world country. Do you think about how many more landfills we need to take care of their garbage? While the corrupt govt in Mexico keeps their land pristine. Mexico is a wealth country. They could have created jobs for their people decades ago. But they won't because these illegals send approx $52 billion a yr back to Mexico. We are not only supporting them here. We are supporting Mexico. Meanwhile, illegals in Mexico are beaten and jailed and Caldrone is now building a fence on it's southern border to keep Ilegals out. The DADT repeal is solely to destroy morale. They want to kill our flag, our religion, our freedom, our patriotism. They want nothing but mindless slaves. And this includes illegals, blacks whites etc. When the money runs out the illegals will find that they are no better off than they were in Mexico.
They call us racists because we are against amnesty. America accepts more Visa workers from other countries than any country in the world . I think that discounts us being racist.

Carl-Edward Endicott| 12.30.10 @ 7:57PM

Further to Purpleguy's initial letter, the phrase: '... all men are created equal...' refers neither to the composition of the population nor to a believer's conception of man, but rather to the desire of the Founders that England regard her former colonies as a soverign nation .The same applies to: e pluribus unum.

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Obama’s Last-Minute Gifts

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (442) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ret. Marine| 12.23.10 @ 6:38AM

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 9:13AM

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 9:23AM

Ted| 12.23.10 @ 10:53AM

tj| 12.23.10 @ 10:59AM

WMC| 12.29.10 @ 4:56AM

George True| 12.23.10 @ 11:08AM

W| 12.23.10 @ 11:59AM

JR| 12.24.10 @ 4:17PM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:10PM

ironhorzmn| 12.27.10 @ 12:06PM

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:05PM

Frisbee| 12.23.10 @ 1:16PM

w| 12.23.10 @ 4:00PM

Frisbee| 12.23.10 @ 6:32PM

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 12:51PM

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:04PM

Abe| 12.24.10 @ 12:21AM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:48PM

victor| 12.24.10 @ 2:53AM

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 1:15PM

victor| 12.24.10 @ 2:23PM

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 2:58PM

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 2:24PM

Danny| 12.29.10 @ 10:00AM

Wayne | 12.25.10 @ 2:51PM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:04PM

Evanston2| 12.26.10 @ 11:58PM

ironhorzmn| 12.27.10 @ 12:16PM

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 9:48AM

John2| 12.23.10 @ 2:40PM

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:07PM

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 1:07PM

Emjayem| 12.23.10 @ 1:09PM

carnot| 12.23.10 @ 2:22PM

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:06PM

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 7:45AM

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 1:17PM

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 2:26PM

RCV| 12.26.10 @ 5:27PM

Frisbee| 12.23.10 @ 1:15PM

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:09PM

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:06AM

Oldefarte| 12.23.10 @ 4:33PM

Purpleguy| 12.23.10 @ 10:12PM

carnot| 12.24.10 @ 9:51AM

Wayne | 12.25.10 @ 2:53PM

MikeD| 12.23.10 @ 11:22PM

KansasGirl| 12.23.10 @ 11:31PM

Evanston2| 12.24.10 @ 12:54PM

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 5:03PM

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:27AM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:13PM

Evanston2| 12.27.10 @ 12:04AM

WMC| 12.29.10 @ 5:22AM

Clint| 12.24.10 @ 7:49AM

JCfromDC| 12.24.10 @ 10:09AM

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 10:37AM

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 1:34PM

Purpleguy| 12.24.10 @ 3:21PM

RacerJim| 12.25.10 @ 9:31AM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:15PM

WMC| 12.29.10 @ 5:31AM

Redstateboy| 12.24.10 @ 2:36PM

IzeHavitt| 12.24.10 @ 11:52PM

Purpleguy| 12.26.10 @ 4:31PM

wodiej| 12.25.10 @ 7:35AM

Checkthefacts| 12.25.10 @ 3:50PM

Joyce| 12.27.10 @ 12:54PM

Joyce| 12.27.10 @ 12:52PM

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 1:19PM

Harley| 12.27.10 @ 1:33PM

Willy| 1.3.11 @ 5:56PM

Eric Cartman| 12.23.10 @ 12:00PM

Evanston2| 12.23.10 @ 12:09PM