The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
The Military works perfectly well as it is.
Dont like it? Enlist and "Fight da man" from the inside.
Can I enlist in the British Military? They're smart enough not to drop essential personnel for silly reasons during wartime.
The military doesn't have to be lovey-dovey, it has to be effective. In the interest of being effective, we integrated the military before the start of the civil rights movement, because we needed the soldiers. In fact, it's probably one of the major causes of the movement.
Right now, we've demonstrably lowered the effectiveness of our military by dismissing soldiers that were nigh-essential.
i.e. Translators in occupied countries where the majority do not speak English.
I actually wasn't gonna mention that, so I could wait for him to go "pssh we can replace them with fine young normal men" and I could go all "fuck, why don't we replace those incredibly useful translators that we had only a very few of and fired for absolutely asinine reasons?"
Other nations already have fully integrated, we didn't wait for the Civil rights movement to let black people become equal members of our military, and this policy has indisputably cost us effectiveness in our current conflict.
It's not being tough. It's not fighting the good fight against the damn PC hippies.
It's cowardice, and incompetence. From the highest levels down.
You can take the PC stance against widowson all you like, but he is entirely correct in a lot of what he says. Up to the part about a bunch of boys in the woods, he is spot on.
I was in the Military for 35 years, and I can tell you now, it would be a disruptive influence. I dont care what your sexual orientation is, but the fact of the matter remains that 90% of soldiers probably do. The Military is not a bastion of tolerance, rainbows and unicorns. It isn't supposed to be. Deal with it.
May I ask what the American Armed Forces' deficiency is that they can't handle gay comrades in arms like so many other militaries can?
Does anyone else really not want to answer that?
I know Belketre doesn't. Trying to back up his argument with facts would probably cause it to fall apart.
Cant answer for the American Military, because I have never served in it.
You believe other militaries can handle "gay comrades in arms"? So, ritual "Fag bashings" aren't commonplace and almost institutionalised in other countries Armed Forces? You are being lied to and are obviously stupid enough to believe that homosexuals are 'accepted' in any countries Military. Being allowed in doesn't mean it is pleasent for them when their sexuality is found out a lot of the time, and probably the majority of the time life becomes horrific.
The facts are I was in the Australian Army for 35 years, and saw it happen. I served alongside soldiers from just about any allied country you care to mention, and they had the same issues. The fact of the matter is that the general population of the military are not accepting, tolerant, new age and whatever else you may like to wish for. I'm presenting facts, you are spouting ideals. Thats how I back up my argument, by not using speculation and citing 35 years of experience.
You are being lied to and are obviously stupid enough to believe that homosexuals are 'accepted' in any countries Military.
I see. So you're telling me that Sergeant Richkev was faking his homosexuality.
And everyone else was faking being okay with it.
Truly, it's a vast conspiracy.
Still though, point is: it's not our job to coddle soldiers.
Gay soldiers have been useful, even indispensable members of our fighting forces. If other soldiers are insubordinate, then they should be punished. If they're not, that's terrible. But the answer to discrimination is not to turn around and punish the victims for "being so disruptively gay that we had to smack you around".
This is about making the most of your pool of recruits, about being the best fighting force possible. If some soldier can't handle that, then he or she needs to change or be discharged.
This whole thread reminds me of an experience a friend of mine had in Catholic School. (And no, it doesn't involve pedastric sodomy for all you anti-papists. :P ) He basically had a Catholic Jesuit teacher argue for an hour that God doesn't exist. In Catholic school. There were two reactions the students had:
1. Essentially putting their hands over their ears and screaming HERETIC, HERETIC, HERETIC.
2. Engaging him as to why he was wrong.
#2 was his point, because to truly understand your beliefs you have to at least consider or know the counterargument against it. He also demonstrated how #1 was thereby intelectually useless.
I think it's beneficial that conservatives should consider that God may not exist, Jesus might have been a nut, and that war may never be the answer. Many do. Even mother Teresa did. Even Peter the Apostle did. You can ask these questions in most churches and get answers.
I think it's beneficial that liberals should consider that abortion may be murder, that homosexuality may be abberant sexual behavior, and that government might not be the answer to every problem. Very few do. You ask these questions in many colleges, these alleged temples of free thought, and you get fired or labled a heretic...er..."intolerant".
It's almost like there's this liberal orthodoxy, this progressive commandmant: THOU SHALT NOT QUESTION THE NORMALCY AND BENEFICIAL NATURE OF SODOMY, ABORTION, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND MASSIVE GOVERNMENT.
And if anyone ever *does*, because we're so certain in the purity and perfection of our ideology, we put our hands over our ears and scream HOMOPHOBE-RACIST-INTOLERANT-SEXIST-BIGOT (option #1) rather than consider that the opposition may very well just be thinking differently and engage them (option #2).
But what do I know? I'm an "intolerant cockbite" who refuses to recant....er repent....er..."keep an open mind" by thinking *exactly* the way Party Orthodoxy says I'm supposed to. ;-)
I take issue with this, because DADT is exactly your people who put their hands over their ears and scream. They don't want to hear it.
Hi, there are already gay men in army showers. Have been for ages.
Funny enough, army's still around.
However, we have historical precedent that the military IS a good way to force social change via the whole blacks in the military thing. Was the military racist? Yes. What did they do to make it not? Kicked out all the fucking racists who showed up when they added black servicemembers.
What do we want them to do about homosexuals? Stop kicking out the homosexuals and kick out the homophobes. You know, the morally right thing that says "don't let discrimination into the armed forces". Or heck, the operationally right thing that says "we need that person's specialty. Fuck anything else about his personal life, the mission comes first".
I don't get it, what is your point? The USMC has a longer entry? I'm stunned that a branch of the American armed services has a larger entry than some protest group.
I don't get it, what is your point? The USMC has a longer entry? I'm stunned that a branch of the American armed services has a larger entry than some protest group.
Code Pink's is mostly controversy, the USMC has no controversy section (which I find amusing, per all my chuckles at wikipedia, there isn't even a link to a split controversy/complaints page)
I'm citing my experience in the American military now.
And I believe Belketre is calling you a liar.
In fairness, I'll say that in my experience that the Army at least is a little less than tolerant of homosexuality. From "mildly intolerant" in your average active-duty support unit, to "extremely intolerant" in National Guard combat-arms units from rural states.
Now, I don't think they're necessarily much less tolerant than the average joe was of blacks before integration occurred on that front...so it's not like I'm saying it can't be done or anything. Also, I think actually allowing openly gay soldiers to serve would in some ways help the matter. At the very least blatantly homophobic humor and attitudes wouldn't be tolerated anymore (if only because gay soldiers would be able to use the EO system more effectively).
That's the important point. Of course the military isn't tolerant. But it won't become more accepting of gay service-members if the idea that they're deficient or dangerous to the unit is enshrined. If our response to the idea of integration was to wait until the military wasn't racist, we'd still be waiting.
I don't get it, what is your point? The USMC has a longer entry? I'm stunned that a branch of the American armed services has a larger entry than some protest group.
Code Pink's is mostly controversy, the USMC has no controversy section (which I find amusing, per all my chuckles at wikipedia, there isn't even a link to a split controversy/complaints page)
Code Pink shouldn't have the controversy section at all. That should be part of anti-(whatever) articles, such as the giant anti-war section.
I don't get it, what is your point? The USMC has a longer entry? I'm stunned that a branch of the American armed services has a larger entry than some protest group.
Code Pink's is mostly controversy, the USMC has no controversy section (which I find amusing, per all my chuckles at wikipedia, there isn't even a link to a split controversy/complaints page)
Code Pink shouldn't have the controversy section at all. That should be part of anti-(whatever) articles, such as the giant anti-war section.
The talk page for Code Pink is A+ material, however. High Wikipedia Comedy
In fairness, I'll say that in my experience that the Army at least is a little less than tolerant of homosexuality. From "mildly intolerant" in your average active-duty support unit, to "extremely intolerant" in National Guard combat-arms units from rural states.
Now, I don't think they're necessarily much less tolerant than the average joe was of blacks before integration occurred on that front...so it's not like I'm saying it can't be done or anything. Also, I think actually allowing openly gay soldiers to serve would in some ways help the matter. At the very least blatantly homophobic humor and attitudes wouldn't be tolerated anymore (if only because gay soldiers would be able to use the EO system more effectively).
I respect the fact that you and I serve in fundamentally different services and mine tends to be more lenient in its views, but you know as well as I do that racists and sexists in the military still exist and will continue to exist. I personally think that the blatant anti gay sentiment we see now is only because it's allowed to exist by the military's current de facto disapproval of homosexuals.
I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you other than saying I don't think the transition would be as difficult as others might think.
I don't get it, what is your point? The USMC has a longer entry? I'm stunned that a branch of the American armed services has a larger entry than some protest group.
Code Pink's is mostly controversy, the USMC has no controversy section (which I find amusing, per all my chuckles at wikipedia, there isn't even a link to a split controversy/complaints page)
The thing is that Code Pink aren't really anti-anti-gay. They are anti-american and they want America to lose the war in Iraq. That they use the allegedly anti-gay USMC for prügelknabe is just a tactic -- what they and their commie handlers/financiers really, really want is for America to be defeated and humiliated.
One way to do this is by lowering troop morale, just as the media did during the Vietnam war. Gay bashing has nothing to do with it. Fortunately they picked the wrong target; the USMC has survived the fiercest battles for more than 200 years, so a bunch of commie grannies won't trouble them at all.
Which is why Code Pink has activated their far-left cohorts in the Berkeley city council. Treason or sedition, pick one.
I used to work at WRAMC. You will never find a more anti-war location than a US Military Hospital.
That does not mean any of them are anti american. It means they don't like people getting fucking shot, and you find it really hard to think Iraq was justified when our intel was flawed to shit and back, and you have to watch some poor girl ask why her dad can't fucking hug her anymore.
Treason and Sedition my fucking ASS. First off this country was FOUNDED on treason and sedition, and second off being anti war means nothing about hating troops, it means we care enough about the people fighting to want them out of fucking danger.
I fail to see in any instance how actively wanting our people to be in danger instead of actively wanting them to come home is un fucking american.
edit: I'm going to slightly apologize for the harshness, but let it stand. That post, to me, implies I'm unamerican for opposing the war. That I'm unamerican for not wanting my family and friends to die for a stupid mistake. If supporting America means wanting my mother in a grave, then kick me the fuck out.
I fail to see in any instance how actively wanting our people to be in danger instead of actively wanting them to come home is un fucking american.
I'm sure there are many good americans who just want the soldiers to come home, but I'm talking specifically about Code Pink and their allies - follow the money, and you'll see what I mean.
"Concerned americans just wanting to get the boys home", my ass. I repeat: traitors and seditionists. But I'm getting really pissed off, so I'll leave this thread now. See ya in the funny pages.
VacuumJockey on
PSN: VacuumJockey
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!"
~ Dr. Emilio Lizardo
You believe other militaries can handle "gay comrades in arms"? So, ritual "Fag bashings" aren't commonplace and almost institutionalised in other countries Armed Forces? You are being lied to and are obviously stupid enough to believe that homosexuals are 'accepted' in any countries Military. Being allowed in doesn't mean it is pleasent for them when their sexuality is found out a lot of the time, and probably the majority of the time life becomes horrific.
The reason that happens is because the higher-ups let it. I would think that if the soldiers knew that their little "fag-bashes" could get them sent to Leavenworth to make little rocks out of big ones, they would stop. Hell, look up what happened regarding "pinning", or better yet, read up on the Tailhook scandal - those were "almost institutionalized" events that once they got some exposure got cleaned up really fucking fast - and killed a lot of careers in the process.
As long as superiors can turn a blind eye to horrific conduct. But what got racism out of the US military wasn't just taking down the idiots who did this shit, but dead-ending the officers who let it happen. They quickly grasped that if they didn't want to be put by the window, they needed to address this matter. Right now, we have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who felt no shame in making homophobic comments on the floor of Congress. We need to make it so that the next time he does that, he knows that he's ending his career by doing so.
I fail to see in any instance how actively wanting our people to be in danger instead of actively wanting them to come home is un fucking american.
I'm sure there are many good americans who just want the soldiers to come home, but I'm talking specifically about Code Pink and their allies - follow the money, and you'll see what I mean.
"Concerned americans just wanting to get the boys home", my ass. I repeat: traitors and seditionists. But I'm getting really pissed off, so I'll leave this thread now. See ya in the funny pages.
Yeah, citing David Horowitz (now there's the very IMAGE of a flip-flopper) is going to impress us.
If you couldn't tell, that last sentence was dripping with sarcasm.
Yes, with thought, it can show a pattern. However it's also entirely possible that a group has a position, and someone with money wants to support said position. You do know that at a certain point people bleed money into groups for tax reasons, right?
Then there's the admitted strategy of getting someone horrible to donate to a group, then pointing out that they donated to them.
Blindly following money is like blindly doing anything. You stub your toe a lot. And occasionally grab an ass that isn't a girl's. Maybe that's just me. O_o
Code Pink, from everything they've publicly done, opposes the war. Not Wants Us To Lose, just wants us to be out of there. They do some things in questionably bad taste. I'd appreciate it if they'd stop. But they're very much americans, and the goal is fine.
Yes, with thought, it can show a pattern. However it's also entirely possible that a group has a position, and someone with money wants to support said position. You do know that at a certain point people bleed money into groups for tax reasons, right?
Then there's the admitted strategy of getting someone horrible to donate to a group, then pointing out that they donated to them.
Blindly following money is like blindly doing anything. You stub your toe a lot. And occasionally grab an ass that isn't a girl's. Maybe that's just me. O_o
Code Pink, from everything they've publicly done, opposes the war. Not Wants Us To Lose, just wants us to be out of there. They do some things in questionably bad taste. I'd appreciate it if they'd stop. But they're very much americans, and the goal is fine.
Again, kildy, we're talking David Horowitz. You know, the guy who backed the Black Panthers before flipping out and going on a right-wing war against academia? I really, really think that says everything you need to know about the veracity of that argument.
For all you know he could be a performance comedian trying to out-absurd reality. Don't judge the man, he could be a genius when we all get in on the joke.
I guess what really gets me on this whole issue is that the Code Pink group is protesting an office that can affect no change. The men and women that serve at this office are just doing their jobs. They don't set policy, they can't (and shouldn't) fight a policy. They can be against the war, or against the DADT policy, but what they are doing isn't fighting the war, or the policy... they are just making the life's and job's of some enlisted men and women hell. What they are effectively doing is protesting men and women serving, and this is wrong. Leave these people alone, and protest where you can make a difference. Put plainly, this protest will not get us out of Iraq, and it will not allow gays in the military.
On another note, the question of the DADT policy. This is by far one of the worst policies ever written. Bill Clinton is a fucking moron for putting that pile of shit in place. Either say "No gays", or say "Gays ok" This back door shit of "it is ok to be gay, as long as you don't talk about it, or hide it well" is stupid. If they allow gays (which I think they should) the military will be shitty for a few years for gays, but it will work out in the end. The same kind of things that happened for Blacks will happen for the gays. Not that it is perfect for blacks right now, but at least you can't openly be racist.
On another side note: I do however support Code Pinks right to do this. I served in the armed forces so that groups like this could do this. I detest what they say, and how they say it... but I would have died to let them say it.
So, this is now the top story at cnn.com. Moreover, Republicans in Congress have decided to get involved:
In Washington, a group of Republican lawmakers have introduced the Semper Fi Act of 2008 -- named after the Marine motto -- to rescind more than $2 million of funds for Berkeley and transfer it to the Marine Corps.
"Like most Americans, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill.
He told CNN he believes the bill will pass. "I think it's going to have significant support."
The bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said in a written statement, "Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences."
Ugh.
FunkyWaltDogg on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
Puke. Retributive patronage politics at their worst.
So, this is now the top story at cnn.com. Moreover, Republicans in Congress have decided to get involved:
In Washington, a group of Republican lawmakers have introduced the Semper Fi Act of 2008 -- named after the Marine motto -- to rescind more than $2 million of funds for Berkeley and transfer it to the Marine Corps.
"Like most Americans, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill.
He told CNN he believes the bill will pass. "I think it's going to have significant support."
The bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said in a written statement, "Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences."
Ugh.
:roll:
Can someone tell me why we're letting Congress control local politics? Co-sponsored by a couple of jackholes from Louisiana and South Carolina. I hope this falls down flat in the vote.
I would like to point out that there's a lot of racist assholes in the US Army that keep it to themselves. They keep it to themselves because otherwise they're either going to get an ass kicking or a dishonorable discharge. If you lets gays in and gave them the same protection, it would be rough for them for a while, but eventually would get better. It was the same with blacks when they were fully integrated, lots of growing pains.
So, this is now the top story at cnn.com. Moreover, Republicans in Congress have decided to get involved:
In Washington, a group of Republican lawmakers have introduced the Semper Fi Act of 2008 -- named after the Marine motto -- to rescind more than $2 million of funds for Berkeley and transfer it to the Marine Corps.
"Like most Americans, I really get disturbed when taxpayer money goes to institutions which proceed to take votes, make policy or make statements that really denigrate the military," said Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, a co-sponsor of the bill.
He told CNN he believes the bill will pass. "I think it's going to have significant support."
The bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, said in a written statement, "Berkeley needs to learn that their actions have consequences."
Ugh.
:roll:
Can someone tell me why we're letting Congress control local politics? Co-sponsored by a couple of jackholes from Louisiana and South Carolina. I hope this falls down flat in the vote.
One thing should be said of all bigotry arguments...
prohibiting discrimination
Does it make sense, because that's what they really all boil down to.
Edit - My comment is slightly inflammatory because a) i'm sort of ignoring the argument at hand here, b) that it's really it's a topic in and of itself, so feel free to ignore it and proceed with... Marines suck, but so do self righteous extremists!
Can someone tell me why we're letting Congress control local politics? Co-sponsored by a couple of jackholes from Louisiana and South Carolina. I hope this falls down flat in the vote.
We're letting congress control where federal funding goes.
Can someone tell me why we're letting Congress control local politics? Co-sponsored by a couple of jackholes from Louisiana and South Carolina. I hope this falls down flat in the vote.
We're letting congress control where federal funding goes.
Posts
I actually wasn't gonna mention that, so I could wait for him to go "pssh we can replace them with fine young normal men" and I could go all "fuck, why don't we replace those incredibly useful translators that we had only a very few of and fired for absolutely asinine reasons?"
Other nations already have fully integrated, we didn't wait for the Civil rights movement to let black people become equal members of our military, and this policy has indisputably cost us effectiveness in our current conflict.
It's not being tough. It's not fighting the good fight against the damn PC hippies.
It's cowardice, and incompetence. From the highest levels down.
Cant answer for the American Military, because I have never served in it.
You believe other militaries can handle "gay comrades in arms"?
The facts are I was in the Australian Army for 35 years, and saw it happen. I served alongside soldiers from just about any allied country you care to mention, and they had the same issues. The fact of the matter is that the general population of the military are not accepting, tolerant, new age and whatever else you may like to wish for. I'm presenting facts, you are spouting ideals. Thats how I back up my argument, by not using speculation and citing 35 years of experience.
I see. So you're telling me that Sergeant Richkev was faking his homosexuality.
And everyone else was faking being okay with it.
Truly, it's a vast conspiracy.
Still though, point is: it's not our job to coddle soldiers.
Gay soldiers have been useful, even indispensable members of our fighting forces. If other soldiers are insubordinate, then they should be punished. If they're not, that's terrible. But the answer to discrimination is not to turn around and punish the victims for "being so disruptively gay that we had to smack you around".
This is about making the most of your pool of recruits, about being the best fighting force possible. If some soldier can't handle that, then he or she needs to change or be discharged.
And I believe Belketre is calling you a liar.
The USMC's wikipedia entry.
Contrast and compare.
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!"
~ Dr. Emilio Lizardo
I take issue with this, because DADT is exactly your people who put their hands over their ears and scream. They don't want to hear it.
Hi, there are already gay men in army showers. Have been for ages.
Funny enough, army's still around.
However, we have historical precedent that the military IS a good way to force social change via the whole blacks in the military thing. Was the military racist? Yes. What did they do to make it not? Kicked out all the fucking racists who showed up when they added black servicemembers.
What do we want them to do about homosexuals? Stop kicking out the homosexuals and kick out the homophobes. You know, the morally right thing that says "don't let discrimination into the armed forces". Or heck, the operationally right thing that says "we need that person's specialty. Fuck anything else about his personal life, the mission comes first".
Code Pink's is mostly controversy, the USMC has no controversy section (which I find amusing, per all my chuckles at wikipedia, there isn't even a link to a split controversy/complaints page)
That's the important point. Of course the military isn't tolerant. But it won't become more accepting of gay service-members if the idea that they're deficient or dangerous to the unit is enshrined. If our response to the idea of integration was to wait until the military wasn't racist, we'd still be waiting.
The talk page for Code Pink is A+ material, however. High Wikipedia Comedy
I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you other than saying I don't think the transition would be as difficult as others might think.
The thing is that Code Pink aren't really anti-anti-gay. They are anti-american and they want America to lose the war in Iraq. That they use the allegedly anti-gay USMC for prügelknabe is just a tactic -- what they and their commie handlers/financiers really, really want is for America to be defeated and humiliated.
One way to do this is by lowering troop morale, just as the media did during the Vietnam war. Gay bashing has nothing to do with it. Fortunately they picked the wrong target; the USMC has survived the fiercest battles for more than 200 years, so a bunch of commie grannies won't trouble them at all.
Which is why Code Pink has activated their far-left cohorts in the Berkeley city council. Treason or sedition, pick one.
Zombie's photo essay.
Fuck Code Pink, and fuck the city of Berkeley. And this from a guy who used to live there.
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!"
~ Dr. Emilio Lizardo
I used to work at WRAMC. You will never find a more anti-war location than a US Military Hospital.
That does not mean any of them are anti american. It means they don't like people getting fucking shot, and you find it really hard to think Iraq was justified when our intel was flawed to shit and back, and you have to watch some poor girl ask why her dad can't fucking hug her anymore.
Treason and Sedition my fucking ASS. First off this country was FOUNDED on treason and sedition, and second off being anti war means nothing about hating troops, it means we care enough about the people fighting to want them out of fucking danger.
I fail to see in any instance how actively wanting our people to be in danger instead of actively wanting them to come home is un fucking american.
edit: I'm going to slightly apologize for the harshness, but let it stand. That post, to me, implies I'm unamerican for opposing the war. That I'm unamerican for not wanting my family and friends to die for a stupid mistake. If supporting America means wanting my mother in a grave, then kick me the fuck out.
Discoverthenetwork.org relationship map.
"Concerned americans just wanting to get the boys home", my ass. I repeat: traitors and seditionists. But I'm getting really pissed off, so I'll leave this thread now. See ya in the funny pages.
"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!"
~ Dr. Emilio Lizardo
The reason that happens is because the higher-ups let it. I would think that if the soldiers knew that their little "fag-bashes" could get them sent to Leavenworth to make little rocks out of big ones, they would stop. Hell, look up what happened regarding "pinning", or better yet, read up on the Tailhook scandal - those were "almost institutionalized" events that once they got some exposure got cleaned up really fucking fast - and killed a lot of careers in the process.
As long as superiors can turn a blind eye to horrific conduct. But what got racism out of the US military wasn't just taking down the idiots who did this shit, but dead-ending the officers who let it happen. They quickly grasped that if they didn't want to be put by the window, they needed to address this matter. Right now, we have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who felt no shame in making homophobic comments on the floor of Congress. We need to make it so that the next time he does that, he knows that he's ending his career by doing so.
Yeah, citing David Horowitz (now there's the very IMAGE of a flip-flopper) is going to impress us.
If you couldn't tell, that last sentence was dripping with sarcasm.
Yes, with thought, it can show a pattern. However it's also entirely possible that a group has a position, and someone with money wants to support said position. You do know that at a certain point people bleed money into groups for tax reasons, right?
Then there's the admitted strategy of getting someone horrible to donate to a group, then pointing out that they donated to them.
Blindly following money is like blindly doing anything. You stub your toe a lot. And occasionally grab an ass that isn't a girl's. Maybe that's just me. O_o
Code Pink, from everything they've publicly done, opposes the war. Not Wants Us To Lose, just wants us to be out of there. They do some things in questionably bad taste. I'd appreciate it if they'd stop. But they're very much americans, and the goal is fine.
Again, kildy, we're talking David Horowitz. You know, the guy who backed the Black Panthers before flipping out and going on a right-wing war against academia? I really, really think that says everything you need to know about the veracity of that argument.
On another note, the question of the DADT policy. This is by far one of the worst policies ever written. Bill Clinton is a fucking moron for putting that pile of shit in place. Either say "No gays", or say "Gays ok" This back door shit of "it is ok to be gay, as long as you don't talk about it, or hide it well" is stupid. If they allow gays (which I think they should) the military will be shitty for a few years for gays, but it will work out in the end. The same kind of things that happened for Blacks will happen for the gays. Not that it is perfect for blacks right now, but at least you can't openly be racist.
On another side note: I do however support Code Pinks right to do this. I served in the armed forces so that groups like this could do this. I detest what they say, and how they say it... but I would have died to let them say it.
Ugh.
Can someone tell me why we're letting Congress control local politics? Co-sponsored by a couple of jackholes from Louisiana and South Carolina. I hope this falls down flat in the vote.
Yeah good luck getting that passed.
prohibiting discrimination
Does it make sense, because that's what they really all boil down to.
Edit - My comment is slightly inflammatory because a) i'm sort of ignoring the argument at hand here, b) that it's really it's a topic in and of itself, so feel free to ignore it and proceed with... Marines suck, but so do self righteous extremists!
And I'd hardly call opposition to this particular war an extremist position.
I support it.