OBAMA IS CRYSTAL ClEAR

[Guest]

It is now crystal clear that Obama does not care what the people want because he proved last night he is not listenimg to them.

[Guest]

Seems that the Potus was more interested in dressing down the congress, the Supreme Court, and any who opposed him and his social programs. His speech sounded more like a classroom scolding than having any substance. Definitely NOT presidential in any way. What did he really say about the State of the Union? Nothing!!!!! He offerred no program or direction to congress for the coming years. This was a chicken in every pot speech and nothing more except the chicken was a pet rock.

[Guest]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jan/27/fact-checking-obamas-state-union-speech/

The above link does fact checking on his speech

[Guest]

I can't believe he had the gall to embarass the Supreme Court Judges and our Chiefs of Staff the way he did. Just amazing!

[Guest]

Easy for him . He's a fool

[Guest]

The dressing down wasn't the kicker. What he said about the decision was a flat out LIE LIE LIE. What's new right?

[Guest]

I watched just to see if he would continue to blame "the past administration".....he did.

[Guest]

I can't believe he had the gall to embarass the Supreme Court Judges and our Chiefs of Staff the way he did. Just amazing!


Embarrass the Supreme Court Justices? Hardly. But have you forgotten that other Presidents have also called out the Supreme Court for an unfavorable ruling.

I think you might have. This isn't the first time. And now will begin a string of messages on how it isn't the same because .......fill in the blanks.

[Guest]

Embarrass the Supreme Court Justices? Hardly. But have you forgotten that other Presidents have also called out the Supreme Court for an unfavorable ruling.

I think you might have. This isn't the first time. And now will begin a string of messages on how it isn't the same because .......fill in the blanks.

Did other Presidents do it during their State of the Union Address? This man is very rude!

[Guest]

Embarrass the Supreme Court Justices? Hardly. But have you forgotten that other Presidents have also called out the Supreme Court for an unfavorable ruling.

I think you might have. This isn't the first time. And now will begin a string of messages on how it isn't the same because .......fill in the blanks.

So you think think our POTUS was justified in admonishing the Supreme Court Justices and our Chiefs of Staff on public TV in front of millions? There's a time and place for eveything, and this was not it. This was supposed to be a State of the Union Address. It was more like a campaign speech. And what does it matter what other presidents have done??? They may have called them out before, but never... NEVER like this!

[Guest]

Did other Presidents do it during their State of the Union Address? This man is very rude!

Very!

[Guest]

Why is it when this POTUS makes himself "perfectly clear," he needs 15 talking heads to to interpret what he really means? And, they do not always agree!

[Guest]

I think the President's State of the Union address was absolutely right on and about time. It's apparent he's going to get tougher now and it appears that no one on this board likes it!

Personally, I was thrilled to see him call out The Supreme Court for their ludicrous decision, to ask the Republicans to get off their overpaid rear-ends and actually participate in this government instead of hiding behind "the party of NO" and to take the Dems to task for not using the majority they "still" have!

I can't wait to see how the Republicans dare vote against "tax cuts" or better yet, filibuster! hahaha! Yep, I'd love to see them filibuster! As Doris Kearns Goodwin (noted historian) said, If the Republicans want to filibuster, let'em! It's never really worked on anything. They get up and read recipes or poems and after a while, they finally just shut up. The average age of the Senate is 62 years old! Some of the rules of a filibuster are 'only milk or water, no food, no bathroom breaks... to name just a few. So, let'em stand up and make fools of themselves."

OMG! I'd love to watch these 60-80 year olds get up and make complete fools of themselves! I'd pay good money to see that!!! :1rotfl:

Watch out peeps... the sleeping tiger has been awakened! :clap2:

[Guest]

Seems that the Potus was more interested in dressing down the congress, the Supreme Court, and any who opposed him and his social programs. His speech sounded more like a classroom scolding than having any substance. Definitely NOT presidential in any way. What did he really say about the State of the Union? Nothing!!!!! He offerred no program or direction to congress for the coming years. This was a chicken in every pot speech and nothing more except the chicken was a pet rock.

He sounds more like a thug- like bully then a president. He is an embarrassment.

[Guest]

He sounds more like a thug- like bully then a president. He is an embarrassment.

No, I think if you look up the word "embarrassment" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of George W. Bush. :shocked:

[Guest]

Ah, back to Bush again. I knew that was coming even a year later.

Obama's speech was one big LIE after LIE. The comment he made about the SC decision was a huge lie and everyone knows it.... except a few.

His speech wasn't embarrassing, it's was just plain incompetent, misinformed, and full of lies. Obama is nothing short of delusional and way over his head. Everything he's done is one big mess.

Let's restate one FACT overlooked by the libs.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY. THEY DON'T NEED ANY REPUBLICANS. THEY CAN PASS ANYTHING THEY WANT ANYTIME THEY WANT.

And they still can't get anything done right. Why? Because they are crooks and even some in their own party won't go along with them. The biggest crook of them all is Obama and even the democrats run from his radicle ways... well some do.

Here's just one example.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections."

Can anyone tell me what century of law that was? Doesn't the anointed one know that the decision reversed part of a law that was passed in 2002? Doesn't the anointed one know that the same laws that apply to foreign corporations are still there just like they have been for a century? Isn't that way one of the justices mouthed "that's not true."

I'll tell you what the problem is. The Democrats only want THEIR special interest spending money on campaigns, no one else.

[Guest]

I miss George Bush. He may not talk very well to his teleprompter but he was sincere and I felt his heart was in the right place. I feel this new guy is lying to everybody.

[Guest]

I miss George Bush. He may not talk very well to his teleprompter but he was sincere and I felt his heart was in the right place. I feel this new guy is lying to everybody.


He has already lied numerous times !

I think he is a smart man....but so badly advised by nothing but pure political hacks !

[Guest]

Did other Presidents do it during their State of the Union Address? This man is very rude!

Thank you ... thank you ..... thank you. You proved my point.

[Guest]

So you think think our POTUS was justified in admonishing the Supreme Court Justices and our Chiefs of Staff on public TV in front of millions? There's a time and place for eveything, and this was not it. This was supposed to be a State of the Union Address. It was more like a campaign speech. And what does it matter what other presidents have done??? They may have called them out before, but never... NEVER like this!

And what was your opinion of the Congressman shouting out "You LIE" during a Presidential speech before Congress?

Surely you have forgotten a certain President SOTU campaign speech prior to the Iraq war. You know the one when he lied about the "Yellow Cake". I can still see him. And my family is still feeling the effects of that SOTU.

[Guest]

DK, it appears you skim read. I did say I was happy he took the Dems to task also for not using THE MAJORITY THEY STILL HAVE!!!

Donna, bless your heart, I'm sure you do miss George Bush. Hey, maybe Jeb will run.

;)

[Guest]

So you think think our POTUS was justified in admonishing the Supreme Court Justices and our Chiefs of Staff on public TV in front of millions? There's a time and place for eveything, and this was not it. This was supposed to be a State of the Union Address. It was more like a campaign speech. And what does it matter what other presidents have done??? They may have called them out before, but never... NEVER like this!

This is what I said....

And now will begin a string of messages on how it isn't the same because .......fill in the blanks.

This makes 2 in a row. So predictable

[Guest]

No, I think if you look up the word "embarrassment" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of George W. Bush. :shocked:

:agree::agree:


Thats a good one.. LOL

[Guest]

not using THE MAJORITY THEY STILL HAVE!!!

The reason why they are not using the THE MAJORITY THEY STILL HAVE!!!??

BECAUSE THEY ARE BAD BILLS and they know it.

[Guest]

DK, it appears you skim read. I did say I was happy he took the Dems to task also for not using THE MAJORITY THEY STILL HAVE!!!

Donna, bless your heart, I'm sure you do miss George Bush. Hey, maybe Jeb will run.

;)

Do you think he will? He would return the honor that was once the presidency.

[Guest]

He kept referring to his "taking responsibility" and would turn right around and blame the "past administration". How is that taking responsibility? When does he actually plan to start? The last administration has not been there for the last year. In all fairness, he did refer to past administrations decades back. Wonder which ones those were?

[Guest]

Do you think he will? He would return the honor that was once the presidency.

And how is it the honor of the presidency has to be returned? Has this president had an affair? Taken a bribe? Lied? What?

[Guest]

My favorite memory on the state of the union speech comes from the woman in the Frank Luntz focus group featured after the speech who expressed the thought that the President is the best recycler in America...because his address did nothing more than raise the points he made in his inaugural address! I agree that the address did nothing to clue me in on what the state of this union is! But of course, I don't need Obama to tell me what it is because I live it every day! The only difference I saw between the inaugural address and the state of the union address was a shift in emphasis from fixing health care to fixing the state of unemployment. There was no pivot as political commentators predicted - it was the same old same old campaigner standing in front of us telling us it is going to cost us more buckets of money to get out of this hole that George Bush '43' got us into. Same old blame game is really getting on my nerves.

When is the the POTUS going to get it!?! He wasted one full year trying to ram an unwanted reform bill down our throats. He demonized the efforts of the apolitical tea party to make him see by allowing princess Pelosi to call the folks astro-turf - she wouldn't know grass roots from the roots of a bad hair dye. He mocked the people who turned out in droves at town meetings to protest rather than recognize them as the protestors he used to rally as a social organizer.

He wants me to believe that he is sincere in reaching across the aisle now - I want to know where this sincerity was before the Massachussetts special election! He is not asking for participation - he is daring Republicans to participate! He meets with the Republicans at their retreat in Baltimore and takes blame for the last days of reconciling a health care bill being "messy" - big deal! Does he really want me to buy this? Rather, I have become more cynical than I ever thought I could be! I believe that the last days of the health care meetings were deliberately scattered hither, thither and yon - just to insure that there could be no transparency! He must have wanted to choke when he had to admit that some of the recommendations/proposed legislative amendments made by the Republicans have been accepted and incorporated into the health care reform bill and other legislation of his administration - thus refuting the name tag of "the party of no".

Now I am convinced that the true direction of this administration will only be seen in the moves orchestrated by princess Nancy and lord Harry. Obama has set himself up to be the good guy in the white hat riding in to save sweet Nell (us) while he has directed the House and Senate leadership to do the dirty deeds. I need to be saved from being saved by this administration!

The President has neither done nor said anything new that can convince me that he is anything more that a social reformer. Sure, he knows a lot of stuff and he is good at delivering it with or without a teleprompter - but I cannot believe that he believes what he is saying. I believe he is saying what he thinks we want to hear because of the MA special election. He lost his party's filibuster majority and does not want to flaunt that he knows he still has the majority. He can let Nancy and Harry spout the hard to hear stuff so that he can still look like the good guy making the honest effort. I can no longer trust or hope to trust whatever this President says.

Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians

[Guest]

And how is it the honor of the presidency has to be returned? Has this president had an affair? Taken a bribe? Lied? What?

Lied? YES... all the time.

Bribes? Well, I'm sure he hasn't taken any but he sure hands them out like candy.

[Guest]

And how is it the honor of the presidency has to be returned? Has this president had an affair? Taken a bribe? Lied? What?

He was a part of the Daly machine and you ask THIS question? Accepting bribes and doing 'favors' is a long standing practice in Chicago politics. I hope you jest.:jester:

[Guest]

10 minutes and decided it was ANOTHER Obama campaign, pep rally type speech. The man uses the word "I" way to much when he wants to clarify where or who he is.
I remember in days gone by when Kruschev was characterized in the political cartoons showing him bowing slightly, big smile on this face, out stretched right hand being offered to shake hands and in his left hand behind his back was a round black bomb with the fuse lit.

Kinda the way I view Obama when he is making a rah-rah speech except behind his back is the book titled "MY Agenda for America (like it or not)".

Actually all the politicians carry the same book, don't they.

After 10 minutes I turned it off.....more of the same old stuff...boring....non-commital....schmooze.

We have decided to emulate one of the advantages of being on a cruise....not watching the TV except to check the weather and review what we are going to do tomorrow.

btk

[Guest]

Lied? YES... all the time.

Bribes? Well, I'm sure he hasn't taken any but he sure hands them out like candy.

So Obama lies all the time...got any proof?

Has anybody died?

[Guest]

He was a part of the Daly machine and you ask THIS question? Accepting bribes and doing 'favors' is a long standing practice in Chicago politics. I hope you jest.:jester:

Part of the Daly machine ...what???? Cause he lived in Chicago? What actual proof do you have? Or are you just about slander? Glen Beck fan?

I can asure you the last President lied big time....dishonored the office

[Guest]

Mr. Obama has told many lies. Even the liberals are mad at him. He promised transparency. All back door pay offs.
He is on the road to be the worst president in history.

[Guest]

Is that a serious question? As long as no one died everything is a ok?

Tax cuts for 95% of Americans - Lie
No earmarks - Lie
Lobbiests in his administration - Lie
Most transparent government - Lie
Comment about the Supreme Court decision - Lie
Open health care debate on CSPAN - Lie

My gosh, I could go on and on but I'm at work so I can't. Maybe later.

Anyone want to add to the list? It's easy.

[Guest]

Is that a serious question? As long as no one died everything is a ok? No my point is the last president did lie and many people died and are still dying.

Tax cuts for 95% of Americans - Lie He hasn't done that yet but not a lie.
No earmarks - Lie I wondered how he could stop the pigs at the trough.
Lobbiests in his administration - Lie Could be doing better.
Most transparent government - Lie Compared to the last Not a lie
Comment about the Supreme Court decision - Nope not a lie.
Open health care debate on CSPAN - Lie It was on CSPAN

My gosh, I could go on and on but I'm at work so I can't. Maybe later.

Anyone want to add to the list? It's easy.

There are my answers.

[Guest]

Mr. Obama has told many lies. Even the liberals are mad at him. He promised transparency. All back door pay offs.
He is on the road to be the worst president in history.

He has a high bar to get over given the last.

[Guest]

Let's just pick one thing to start.

Obama said the Supreme Court turned over 100 years of legal precedent.

Can you tell me what precedent that was from 100 years ago?

[Guest]

Tax cuts for 95% of Americans - Lie He hasn't done that yet but not a lie.

You just said he hasn't done it yet so it's not a lie. He claims he has. Let's clarify that as well. In his state of the union address the other night he said and I quote.

"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."

BIG FAT LIE.

[Guest]

speech he EVER made...."Obama said _ _ _ _ _ (fill in the blank), however details were lacking".

Schmooze = tell 'em what you think they wanna hear.....then go onto the next one. They all do it. But since Obama has broken every record for appearances/interviews he does it more. Creating a more obvious data stream of words and no action/results.

I believe he and his whiz bang wizards in the WH really believe that as long as a given subject has been TALKED about...the subject has been addressed. I suppose in the legal sense of analysis that MAY be true...some how I have never been able to make a deposit at the bank with words only!!

btk

[Guest]

Let's just pick one thing to start.

Obama said the Supreme Court turned over 100 years of legal precedent.

Can you tell me what precedent that was from 100 years ago?

I believe the Constitution starts with "We the People" not with "We the Corporations". A similar case was looked at when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the Court and a dissimilar ruling was made.

[Guest]

I believe the Constitution starts with "We the People" not with "We the Corporations". A similar case was looked at when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the Court and a dissimilar ruling was made.

Why not answer a legitimate question with a legitimate answer.

Obama must have lied when he said a hundred years because as a former constitutional law professor he knows it was untrue.

[Guest]

Fact is the court overturned part of a law passed in 2002. All other protections are still in place just like they always have been.

Obama lied and he knew it was a lie when he said it.

Funny how the left calls Bush a liar and then slides on the blinders and gives Obama a free pass on everything. I guess two wrongs do make a right these days.

[Guest]

Politifact says it's "barely true" - noting that "100 years" is a stretch.

Here are the details: http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/22/charles-schumer/campaign-finance-ruling-united-citizens-historical/

[Guest]

I believe the Constitution starts with "We the People" not with "We the Corporations". A similar case was looked at when Sandra Day O'Connor was on the Court and a dissimilar ruling was made.

Then why does he not listen to the people?

[Guest]

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Because his adjenda is his own, not the peoples.

[Guest]

Then why does he not listen to the people?

There are many voices to listen to... the progressives want more done and the conservatives less. And the Tea Party people don't think he is the President anyway.

It is a difficult situation....

I want Healthcare Reform but I also want the wars shutdown. I want Don't Ask Don't Tell lifted but I also want Immigration Reform.

Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative

[Guest]

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. Because his adjenda is his own, not the peoples.

I believe that all the Presidents have an agenda. Regan's clearly was de-regulation and smaller government. I voted for Regan but not because he was for smaller government I just couldn't pull the lever for Carter.

The fact the President has an agenda is not an evil thing.....

[Guest]

There are many voices to listen to... the progressives want more done and the conservatives less. And the Tea Party people don't think he is the President anyway.

It is a difficult situation....

I want Healthcare Reform but I also want the wars shutdown. I want Don't Ask Don't Tell lifted but I also want Immigration Reform.

Social Liberal/Fiscal Conservative

I think civilians should not have a say on military matters. Social experiments do not belong in the military. Period.

[Guest]

I think civilians should not have a say on military matters. Social experiments do not belong in the military. Period.

It is a free country and I can have an opinion. It is not a social experiment as quite a few countries have openly gay service members. You might want to check out what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said today.

The policy was supposed to stop the witch hunts but it didn't. It is particularly bad for a single woman who turns down a date for example...she can be turned in for investigation. How can you prove you are not.

These issues have been widely reported.....

[Guest]

It is a free country and I can have an opinion. It is not a social experiment as quite a few countries have openly gay service members. You might want to check out what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said today.

The policy was supposed to stop the witch hunts but it didn't. It is particularly bad for a single woman who turns down a date for example...she can be turned in for investigation. How can you prove you are not.

These issues have been widely reported.....

Adm. Mullens has no combat experience. This isn't "other countries". This is the greatest military in history. We should ask real combat commanders what they think about it. Political military people in armchairs are not subjected to "social experiment's" consequences.
All ex-military men in my family are against homosexuals in the service.

[Guest]

Adm. Mullens has no combat experience. This isn't "other countries". This is the greatest military in history. We should ask real combat commanders what they think about it. Political military people in armchairs are not subjected to "social experiment's" consequences.
All ex-military men in my family are against homosexuals in the service.

And the military men in my family including my nephew currently in Afghanistan do not oppose the lifting of the ban. And what difference does Adm Mullens lack of "combat" experience make? If he had combat experience you would throw up some other excuse.

The United States military is a great institution in which an estimated 60,000 gays currently serve. The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy is very simple

1) The member is found to have engaged, attempted to engage, or solicited another to
engage, in homosexual acts, unless the member has demonstrated, among other things, that he or
she "does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts."
(2) The member "has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that
effect," unless "the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in,
attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts."
(3) The member has married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex

The key part is the unless the member has demonstrated that he or she a person who engages in or attempts to engage in......homosexual acts.

Because of that sentence the policy has actually been called Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue Don't Harass. But someone forgot to tell the investigative unit about the Don't Pursue and Harass parts.

What about the cases of straight women who are harassed and investigated because they turn down unwanted advances from other servicemen?

What should be done about that?

[Guest]

I know my comments will continue to take the original post completely off topic. So, with apologies, I will move on. I am going to ask a question for discussion, for my own education and to hopefully help me gain insight. I know the question of gays in the military is very controversial and personal. That's fine. But it's really not "gays" in the military. The ACLU and other lobbists and civil rights groups are working at promoting and protecting the LGBTs; Lesbians, Gays Bisexuels and Transgenders. That is how the "gays" are identified for purposes of their promotions. Are you aware that the polyamory and non-monogamy groups are attempting to hitch their wagons to the LGBT's trains as well? I just wonder what ramifications this will have, not only to the straight troops in the military, but can you imagine such things as a "gay" being found out by a militant muslim. How about military benefits (housing, retirement, insurance etc) to unmarried, or married gays...my questions can go on and on...so these are just a few of the things that swirl through my head when the topic is brought up. Somebody straighten me out, no pun intended. B.K.

[Guest]

And the military men in my family including my nephew currently in Afghanistan do not oppose the lifting of the ban. And what difference does Adm Mullens lack of "combat" experience make? If he had combat experience you would throw up some other excuse.

The United States military is a great institution in which an estimated 60,000 gays currently serve. The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy is very simple

1) The member is found to have engaged, attempted to engage, or solicited another to
engage, in homosexual acts, unless the member has demonstrated, among other things, that he or
she "does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts."
(2) The member "has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual or words to that
effect," unless "the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in,
attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts."
(3) The member has married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex

The key part is the unless the member has demonstrated that he or she a person who engages in or attempts to engage in......homosexual acts.

Because of that sentence the policy has actually been called Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Pursue Don't Harass. But someone forgot to tell the investigative unit about the Don't Pursue and Harass parts.

What about the cases of straight women who are harassed and investigated because they turn down unwanted advances from other servicemen?

What should be done about that?

60,000? My my. How and who came up with those figures?

My brother belongs to a couple of military organizations who are vehemently opposed to homosexuals in the service. Again, social experiments do not belong in the military. Don't ask. don't tell, is working fine.

[Guest]

I think civilians should not have a say on military matters. Social experiments do not belong in the military. Period.

The military is subordinate to civilians. The President, a civilian, is the Commander in Chief. It's at the very core of our country - the way we were founded.

Racial integration was another "social experiment" in the middle of the last century. Lots of veterans who got their panties in a wad over not wanting to serve next to a black soldier or sailor. It was wrong then. That kind of discrimination is just as wrong now.

Barry Goldwater said it best decades ago. "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

[Guest]

60,000? My my. How and who came up with those figures?

My brother belongs to a couple of military organizations who are vehemently opposed to homosexuals in the service. Again, social experiments do not belong in the military. Don't ask. don't tell, is working fine.


Don't Ask Don't Tell is NOT working fine...far from it. But you didn't answer the question I had so here is some more information for you. The ban on gays in the military was not instituted until 1982. After its adoption a study found that while white women made up only 6.4% of the military 20.2% of those discharged for being gays were white women. This has remained a problem under Don't Ask, Don't Tell and later Don't Pursue. This is such a problem that Sec Gates is looking at...From a CNN piece:

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

So again what would you and your family do about a women who is reported as gay because she refuses to go out with someone?

[Guest]

I know my comments will continue to take the original post completely off topic. So, with apologies, I will move on. I am going to ask a question for discussion, for my own education and to hopefully help me gain insight. I know the question of gays in the military is very controversial and personal. That's fine. But it's really not "gays" in the military. The ACLU and other lobbyists and civil rights groups are working at promoting and protecting the LGBTs; Lesbians, Gays Bisexuals and Transgenders. That is how the "gays" are identified for purposes of their promotions. Are you aware that the polyamory and non-monogamy groups are attempting to hitch their wagons to the LGBT's trains as well? I just wonder what ramifications this will have, not only to the straight troops in the military, but can you imagine such things as a "gay" being found out by a militant muslim. How about military benefits (housing, retirement, insurance etc) to unmarried, or married gays...my questions can go on and on...so these are just a few of the things that swirl through my head when the topic is brought up. Somebody straighten me out, no pun intended. B.K.

Ok I will give it a shot.... first I had to look up the definition of polymory.. is that how it is spelled. But my take on this is much like the arguments used against general gay rights. Conservative groups throw out a lot of stuff to see what sticks. Like if we give rights to gays the next in line will be the pedophiles followed closely by the human/animal (bestiality).

Taking the easy first gays are not allowed to be married in the United States so the benefit part is simple. Single military people live in the barracks only married people get houses. This simple process applies also to retirement, insurance, hospital visitation etc. The problem also exists currently outside the military on these fronts. As for lesbian, gay and bisexual that is really all one class representing the polar opposites and absolute middle of the sexual spectrum.

After the Supreme Court decision there are no more laws on the books which make homosexual act illegal. However, I believe that there are laws against polygamy. That would take care of that argument.

Now for the harder ones

The military has a ban on adultery which is widely ignored. I know this because my ex brother in-law, also known as the dirt bag, had an affair while in the Air Force widely known nothing done. So that one already exists.

Transgendered is a different class can be straight/can be gay but generally the person feels like they are trapped in the wrong body and spends large amounts of money to change that. I wonder if this is an issue at all?

The last is the hardest...my nephew is in the war zone for the 5th time and I worry all the time about him. When he joined I was very worried but we had a long talk. He wants to do this, he is a lifer and is much happier in the military. Given what my nephew said to me if a gay person signs up and gets captured and killed because he/she is gay then that is no different than another troop being killed because he/she is an American.

[Guest]

Cologal: Thank you for responding. With all due respect, your statement, "Taking the easy first gays are not allowed to be married in the United States..."
Yes, "gays" are allowed to be married in the US. Same sex marriage is allowed in five US states and, just recently, the District of Columbia. The states legalizing same sex, "gay" marriage are Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, the US government doesn't recognize these unions. That becomes very complicated which emphasizes my point of what is to happen if we allow the LGBTs into the military with open admission of their sexual orientation.

I get your point exactly about the snowball affect where things become so exaggerated and there is no truth or facts to back it up. I get your point, for instance...if we allow this (insert something here...ummm let's say gays) in the military then baby killers will be allowed. I get that...

BUT I'm not playing on that fear. This is real. Look it up yourself. The organizations that promote the rights of "gays" is called the LGBT. Here's just one link:

http://www.aclu.org/hiv-aids_lgbt-rights/resources-lgbt-equality

Research it yourself. I hope it's as eyeopening to you as it has been to me.

The issue of transgendered is a point because they are part of the same lobby. It's not a "gay" thing. It is a push for LGBT rights.

If you read for yourself the LGBT agenda, yes, they have their own website, you can find documentation that the "polyamory and non-monogamy groups are attempting to hitch their wagons to the LGBT's trains as well."

Hang with me, because I know it seems like I'm pushing snow here to form that giant snowball you are worried about. But research it yourself. Read, read, read and decide. As for the LGBT, that is fact.

Please forgive me, the brother-in-law part of your reply I don't really understand. "The military has a ban on adultery which is widely ignored. I know this because my ex brother in-law, also known as the dirt bag, had an affair while in the Air Force widely known nothing done. So that one already exists." If nothing was done, what point were you making?

The last part about your nephew made me want to cry. What a patriot. I bet he is your hero. I would have loved to have seen the pride in your eyes when he enlisted. I know you must worry about him. My husband is a superintendent for a general contractor doing the big FORSCOM work at Fort Bragg. I've made so many friends here with military backgrounds and who are now proudly serving and who have spouses serving. First hand, I've seen and heard stories of heroism and sacrifice. I don't for a second think a "gay" can't pull the trigger...that is a silly argument. There are just so many things to consider in the real world with real issuses, real personalities, real hormones, real egos. This world with the young paratroopers for the 82nd Airborne, and Special Ops being trained and Pope Air Force Base where I live.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=bkcunningham1;246764]

I to appreciate your response. My statement about gay marriage did come fro the standpoint of DOMA. I usually look at the "LGBT agenda" thing with some degree of scorn mainly because it has been overworked in recent years. But I will look at the link...Its funny though I had never heard about the transgender issue until yesterday when I sister called me to say someone had brought it up to her.

My point was about the people with multiple partners...happens all the time in the military but the ban on adultery is widely ignored.

As for my nephew I am very proud of him, there was a lot a crying going on when we dropped him off. He told his recruiter I would be coming for the recruiter should any thing happen so far I haven't had to do that. LOL. Today I was at Starbucks getting him some instant coffee just because its from Starbucks he will laugh when he gets it.

Take Care.

[Guest]

The military is subordinate to civilians. The President, a civilian, is the Commander in Chief. It's at the very core of our country - the way we were founded.

Racial integration was another "social experiment" in the middle of the last century. Lots of veterans who got their panties in a wad over not wanting to serve next to a black soldier or sailor. It was wrong then. That kind of discrimination is just as wrong now.

Barry Goldwater said it best decades ago. "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

The President does not have to eat, shower,fight or socialize with troops. Again, social experiments do not belong in the military. The military is not a democracy. Political correctness is infecting out culture. It should not destroy our soldiers.

[Guest]

The President does not have to eat, shower,fight or socialize with troops. Again, social experiments do not belong in the military. The military is not a democracy. Political correctness is infecting out culture. It should not destroy our soldiers.

So now we all know where you are coming from..... but perhaps you missed the news today. Colin Powell is now in favor of lifting the ban, I think he has some combat experience.

Any answer about the harassment of women yet?

[Guest]

So now we all know where you are coming from..... but perhaps you missed the news today. Colin Powell is now in favor of lifting the ban, I think he has some combat experience.

Any answer about the harassment of women yet?

What is that supposed to mean?
Does anybody really take Powell seriously anymore?:sigh:

[Guest]

What is that supposed to mean?
Does anybody really take Powell seriously anymore?:sigh:


So let me get this "straight" Adm McMullen can't comment because he has no combat experience and Colin Powell no longer agrees with you so therefore no one can take him seriously.

You seem to shape things to fit the outcome you want to see.


Any answer yet on how to resolve the harassment of women by the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy?

[Guest]

You may not want to hear this but my sources say that women in the service "get over" with things that the men can't. Seems they use their feminine ways to get what or what not, they want. As a women, I think I understand. For every ying, there is a yang.

[Guest]

Donna, that's an insult to every servicewoman who ever had to deal with "Tailhook".

[Guest]

Donna, that's an insult to every servicewoman who ever had to deal with "Tailhook".

Tell me how a reunion 20 years ago at the Las Vegas Hilton where officers were drinking and partying has to do with ordinary enlisted people doing their everyday duties for their country?

[Guest]

Donna, that's an insult to every servicewoman who ever had to deal with "Tailhook".


:agree::agree: I can't believe she said that. Not worth my time.

[Guest]

Tell me how a reunion 20 years ago at the Las Vegas Hilton where officers were drinking and partying has to do with ordinary enlisted people doing their everyday duties for their country?

You are joking...you have to joking. Tailhook a reunion...did you not hear about the gauntlet? One of the worse examples of sexual harassment of women in the military and you call it drinking and partying?

You must be from another planet.

[Guest]

Have you ever served in the military?

[Guest]

Have you ever served in the military?

Most men in my family have served. 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium is just that. Look it up.

Newly sworn in Massachusetts Senator, Scott Brown, was asked today about the military's policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" He said he would have to talk with ground combat commanders about their opinion on the matter before making a judgment. They are the ones that will have to deal with it. (last sentence, my words)

[Guest]

What is the thought over the years as to why the military did not, does not mix men and women in the same barracks?

Let's assume for a minute a reason could be to avoid sexual (guy and gal) encounters....good....bad....consensual....other.

Since it will be openly OK for same sex opportunities to occur in the military....should they not also allow men and women in the same barracks.

I sorta think when these "restrictions" were put in place it was to eliminate sexual encounters.......

so now what?

btk

[Guest]

What is the thought over the years as to why the military did not, does not mix men and women in the same barracks?

Let's assume for a minute a reason could be to avoid sexual (guy and gal) encounters....good....bad....consensual....other.

Since it will be openly OK for same sex opportunities to occur in the military....should they not also allow men and women in the same barracks.

I sorta think when these "restrictions" were put in place it was to eliminate sexual encounters.......

so now what?

btk

Excellent response. It seems that Obama is just taking up the causes that were the Clinton's 15 years ago. (Healthcare, homosexuals in service etc.)
I understand that this is a subject that many people do not want to discuss. Many fear that they will be labeled anti-homosexual if they voice their concerns for the military.

I just want to say that I have nothing personal against homosexuals. My family has dealt with that issue over 10 years ago when my married nephew came "out of the closet." Needless to say it was a shock for everyone, including his wife. But he and his long time partner are part of the family now. All of the issues have been resolved and everybody feels comfortable with the situation.
As a person who supports the military and is proud of my family's contributions through the generations, my only concern is the soldier who put his or her's life on the line every day.
I just wanted to put that out there.

[Guest]

Well, if you beleive that our service men and women are nothing more than animals who can't take "NO" for an answer and will rape everyone in sight, I suppose there's not a lot that can be said to change one's mind.

See - the thing is, I know a lot of gays, lesbians and bisexuals (actually it's more accurate to say I *have* known more as many that I've known have moved/drifted away as decades have passed). Over the years I got to know more about those in my family, those I worked with and those I was friends with. The misconceptions and pre-conceived notions are sometimes shocking, sometimes downright criminal.

Women in the military, mixed-race units - they were both called "social experiments" by detractors in their day. The military had a policy of believing that blacks were inferior and incapable of flying airplanes until the "experiment" of the Tuskegee Airmen.

Now the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs says it's time for the policy to go - as soon as they can work out issues concerning base housing, benefits, etc - and now John McCain, who said in 2006 that he would support repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" when the military brass said it was time, has now flip-flopped 100% and says it's not the time.

Can you honestly say that it's "correct" to discharge someone just because of who they are attracted to? Especially in the cases a few years ago where Arab translators were in such high demand and low supply in Iraq, yet kicked out because they were accused of being gay!

[Guest]

There it is again, twisting the subject to include race. Seems every time a liberal gets stuck in neutral, the race card comes up. We are talking about homosexuals in the service?
Again, I personally do not care what McCain thinks about this issue. He was a pilot whose peers were the elite in the service. Again, the only opinions that hold water are the commanders whose troops are actually engaged in the support and fighting for our country.
Off topic: One of my brother's best friends was a Vietnam POW and I can tell you for fact that there is a huge circle of Ex POW's that do not hold McCain in high esteem. They have a code and don't like to talk about it. But it is real.

[Guest]

Donna, you misspelled "libertarian" as "liberal".

My father was career Navy. My brother was Navy. My mom was a Marine. My uncle was in the Air Force and my grandfather was Army. My fiancee has two sons, one who just got out of the Navy and another who is about to get out of the Army now that his Iraq tour is up. Heck, I work supporting an Air Force contract.

You said I brought "the race card" up - you forgot I also "brought" the "sex card" up. Why? Because you might not realize just how similar the situations are. People being denied permission to serve their country because of something that has NOTHING to do with their ability to serve their country.

Also, if you don't like what McCain thinks, apparently you can wait a little while, like the weather in New England, it'll change (and I find that highly disappointing).

So far, the only "put the brakes on a bit" thing I've heard that, to me, makes sense is that the military should be given some reasonable amount of time to work out what it (openly allowing gays) will mean for things like base housing, benefits, etc. Time to develop policies, in other words - and that certainly sounds reasonable to me.