Conservative Candidates All Support Banning Gays From The Military
Conservative Candidates All Support Banning Gays From The Military
At CNN’s Democratic presidential debate on Sunday, host Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates, by show of hands, to say whether they would get rid of the ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ ban on gays in the U.S. military. All eight candidates raised their hands. Over loud audience applause, former senator Mike Gravel shouted, “It should have been gotten rid of 20 years ago.”
In contrast, when Blitzer tonight asked, “Is there anyone here who believes gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military? If you do, speak up now,” there was a deafening silence. No one raised their hands.
Watch both clips back to back:
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is weakening our national security. Since the policy was instituted, at least 11,000 servicemembers, hundreds of whom had with key speciality skills such as training in Arabic, have left the military. Currently in the midst of a readiness crisis, the military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if gays could serve openly.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good, maybe I’ll vote.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:42 pmRudy, what about men in drag running for the WH?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:43 pmNow i know why there are no republicans fighting in Iraq!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:44 pmHomosexuals are problematic in the military, they need to get them out and get the damn women out of the front line fighting units and ships.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:46 pmThese are 2 of the reasons I left the military.
And why the military is loosing now in Iraq.
They must realize that there are currently, and there always have been, gays in the military.
It’s stupid to keep out gays if they want to serve.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:48 pmGood, maybe I’ll vote.
Comment by Mr. President
Any credibility you might have had just went down the drain. Have you EVER voted?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:49 pmWhy in the hell would anybody, in their right mind, want to serve in a military that is constantly being neglected and abused by the government anyway??
June 5th, 2007 at 10:51 pmAny credibility you might have had just went down the drain. Have you EVER voted?
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
1) Why, because I don’t think gays should be in the military?
2) Nope, and I’m not really going to.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:53 pmLOL the GOPer candidates are all closeted hypocrites, so rediculous for them to be anti Gays in the military. They think Matt Sanchez the porn star can be a Marine, so they need to stop being two-faced.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:55 pmHomosexuals are problematic in the military, they need to get them out and get the damn women out of the front line fighting units and ships.
These are 2 of the reasons I left the military.
And why the military is loosing now in Iraq.
Comment by Jonsey Jones
So now it’s the fault of the gays and the women???
Unf*ckingbelievable!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pmWhy in the hell would anybody, in their right mind, want to serve in a military that is constantly being neglected and abused by the government anyway??
Comment by JPV
Who knows? But if someone wants to serve, they should have that option.
June 5th, 2007 at 10:56 pm1) Why, because I don’t think gays should be in the military?
2) Nope, and I’m not really going to.
Comment by Mr. President
1. No, because you don’t even bother to vote.
2. You don’t even have a right to b*tch about either side.
What the hell are you doing here?
June 5th, 2007 at 10:58 pmSomeone might want to remind the moonbats that DADT is Clinton’s policy.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmSo now it’s the fault of the gays and the women???
Unf*ckingbelievable!!!
Comment by JPV — June 5, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
No, it’s not women or the gays’ fault. It is the poor decision making that allowed our military to lower standards.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmSo we have Rudy Giuliani who likes to wear women’s undies, and bras, against Gays in the military? Rudy cross dresses and that is far more creepy than Gay males in the military.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:00 pmIs this headline really correct? I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul is against gays in the military. He’s a Libertarian, and it’s seems to go against their ideology.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pmJonsey Jones,
Did you used to troll as “Jersey McJones” on the Reason “Hit and Run” blog?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pmComment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
Actually, I have a right to say whatever I like.
I don’t bitch about anything, I point out fallacious arguments, act like a jackass, and make libs look silly.
What the hell are you doing here?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:03 pmit’s not a ‘ban’ on gays, it’s a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy….
there’s a distinction….
please, thinkprogress, don’t use propaganda when informing us. thanks!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pmSomeone might want to remind the moonbats that DADT is Clinton’s policy.
Comment by m12
But m12, if we did get rid of DADT, you could finally come out of the closet and go fight the war you love so dearly.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pmAnd we have Mitt Romney a guy who primps in the mirror far more than Sen. Edwards, plus Mitt’s hair has to be just right all the time. He is Gay, but since he is a Mormon, if he admitted it, then Mitt would be required to commit suicide.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pmThis is the best the republic party has to offer: out of touch with reality, able to overlook the most basic facts pertinent to almost any subject, and deeply fearful that if homosexualiy is legitimized, they will somehow be in danger or their culture will be violated.
Here’s a good idea – lets let one of these dickheads run the country!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:05 pmact like a jackass, and make libs look silly.
Comment by Mr. President — June 5, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
Actually, you’re only making yourself look like a childish jerk. Anyone that comes here can tell that the Republican, Bush apologist trolls that come here act like children and can’t make coherent arguments while the progressives add value.
Keep coming back. You’re proof that TP is succesful and that Republican trolls are childish idiots. We couldn’t do it better ourselves.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:07 pmJPV > the press ignores Ron Paul, so they do not care what he thinks.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:07 pm#20
Why don’t you tell that to Bill Clinton?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:07 pmAnd the follow up questions were:
“OK, should muslims be allowed to serve?”
“How about blacks in a desegregated army? – oh sorry, that was a question from 1944’s Republican debate”
June 5th, 2007 at 11:08 pmNo, it’s not women or the gays’ fault. It is the poor decision making that allowed our military to lower standards.
Comment by Mr. President — June 5, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
“Lower standards”? Prove it. In what way?
You seem to fit the profile in my earlier post – maybe you should run for the Republic Party nomination.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:09 pmComment by Vinnie — June 5, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
You still think I’m a republican!?!?!?!
Dude, I don’t even vote!!!!!!!!!!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:10 pmRepublican bigotry hurts the troops….
June 5th, 2007 at 11:12 pm‘“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell†is weakening our national security.’
Has Hell frozen over???? ThinkProgress is ctually saying that a policy initiated by Bill Clinton is “weakening our national security????”
June 5th, 2007 at 11:14 pmWhy don’t you tell that to Bill Clinton?
Comment by m12
You mean, “please drop DADT and let gays openly serve in the military so m12 can FINALLY come out of the closet and fight the good fight”? Clinton isn’t President (hasn’t been for over 6 years, m12). I guess we’d have to take your case to BuschCo… oops, no good there. Back into the closet, m12, if you wish to fight the war you love so much.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:15 pmWhat the hell are you doing here?
Comment by Mr. President
Yeah, you do have the right to say whatever you want.
I actually contribute to the topic at hand at least 50% of the time, and care about what happens to this country.
Your standard response is “No one cares!!!!!”
Figure out how to care — about SOMETHING.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:17 pm“Lower standards� Prove it. In what way?
You seem to fit the profile in my earlier post – maybe you should run for the Republic Party nomination.
Comment by smafdy — June 5, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
Women do not have the physical strength that men do, moron.
You seem to be stupid f*ckhead, maybe you should get a flashlight and shine it up someone’s ass like the rest of your liberal party (I would say run for nomination, but that would be an even bigger waste of time).
June 5th, 2007 at 11:20 pm‘“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell†is weakening our national security.’
Has Hell frozen over???? ThinkProgress is ctually saying that a policy initiated by Bill Clinton is “weakening our national security????â€
Comment by Exley
Well, geez, young Master Exley, you don’t HAVE to come out of the closet to serve your country. The war is a-waitin’, you Uber-patriot, you.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:20 pmYou mean, “please drop DADT and let gays openly serve in the military so m12 can FINALLY come out of the closet and fight the good fight� Clinton isn’t President (hasn’t been for over 6 years, m12). I guess we’d have to take your case to BuschCo… oops, no good there. Back into the closet, m12, if you wish to fight the war you love so much.
Why would we drop DADT when it’s a strong, bipartisan policy supported by the Joint Chiefs?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:23 pmYou seem to be stupid f*ckhead, maybe you should get a flashlight and shine it up someone’s ass like the rest of your liberal party (I would say run for nomination, but that would be an even bigger waste of time).
Comment by Mr. President
“maybe you should get a flashlight and shine it up someone’s ass like the rest of your liberal party”
Must you “inject” your personal sexual fantasies into every conversation, Mr. P? And in your case, what would we find, Jeff Gannon’s wrist watch?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pmDADT was a compromise that forced on Clinton after he said he would end discrimination in the military and Republicans said that they would stop him. If you were around in 1992 you would know that.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:24 pmDADT was a compromise that forced on Clinton after he said he would end discrimination in the military and Republicans said that they would stop him. If you were around in 1992 you would know that.
Democrats controlled both houses of Congress at the time too….guess they weren’t interested in the homosexual agenda then.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pmIf Democrats want to drop DADT and Republicans want to keep it, how is that “bipartisan support”? Sheesh.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:26 pmWhy would we drop DADT when it’s a strong, bipartisan policy supported by the Joint Chiefs?
Comment by m12
Someone might want to remind the moonbats that DADT is Clinton’s policy.
Comment by m12
Are we a little “internally conflicted”, m12? Trying to sublimate those problems by assigning them to other people and then attacking them for it?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pmWomen do not have the physical strength that men do, moron.
Comment by Mr. President
And yet my sister managed six years in the Navy! Amazing.
Oh yeah, ever pushed out a 9 1/2 pound baby, Mr P? I have.
Women have DIFFERENT physical strength.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pmf Democrats want to drop DADT and Republicans want to keep it, how is that “bipartisan support� Sheesh.
Comment by Republicans are the Fear and Smear Party
“and Republicans want to keep it” Indeed, how else will Repubs enlist w/out coming out of the closet?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:29 pmThere’s just no point in discussing anything with moonbats like m12, mr. president and exley.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:32 pmWomen do not have the physical strength that men do, moron.
Comment by Mr. President
Uh, Mr. P? If you’d like to go into a boxing ring w/ some of the female martial artists I know, it can be EASILY arranged. Just sign this little release, so if someone ends up w/ a broken nose or cracked ribs, there’s no hard feelings, and you can get it ON…
June 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pm1. No, because you don’t even bother to vote.
2. You don’t even have a right to b*tch about either side.
What the hell are you doing here?
Comment by Zooey
It’s always possible that he doesn’t vote because he can’t, Zooey. As in: 14 years old. Or: convicted felon.
It may not be his fault. Heh.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pmWomen have DIFFERENT physical strength.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
No doubt, no doubt. But when comes down to it women are not as physically strong.
This is common knowledge people.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:33 pmThis is common knowledge people.
Comment by Mr. President
Got beat up by girls, huh?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pmNo doubt, no doubt. But when comes down to it women are not as physically strong.
This is common knowledge people.
Comment by Mr. President
Just sign this release, and the game is ON, El Presidente.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:36 pmWomen do not have the physical strength that men do, moron.
Comment by Mr. President
And yet my sister managed six years in the Navy! Amazing.
Oh yeah, ever pushed out a 9 1/2 pound baby, Mr P? I have.
Women have DIFFERENT physical strength.
Comment by Zooey
What is particularly odd (well, among other things) about this attitude is that it primarily comes from the same conservatives who believe the Israeli army walks on water. And the Israelis have mandatory conscription for both men and women.
Women in the IDF? But, but . . .
June 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pmIt’s always possible that he doesn’t vote because he can’t, Zooey. As in: 14 years old. Or: convicted felon.
It may not be his fault. Heh.
Comment by gummitch
It’s his fault. He’s just too apathetic to get his hiney down to the polling place and pull a lever every now and then. And proud of it. Shameful.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pmGot beat up by girls, huh?
Comment by Zooey
And probably more than once, too. Sounds like another victim of multiple “Super-Wedgies” to me.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:40 pmComment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
Comment by the republic of stupidity — June 5, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
How far are you prepared to go just to try to prove me wrong?
Are you really going to claim that, in general, healthy men and women have the same physically strength?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:40 pmWomen in the IDF? But, but . . .
Comment by gummitch
There ya go. If having women there wasn’t working out, they sure as hell wouldn’t keep making them serve, would they?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:42 pmComment by gummitch — June 5, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
It would be irresponsible to vote with all the shiteating politicians in DC. F*cking right I don’t vote.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:43 pmHow far are you prepared to go just to try to prove me wrong?
Are you really going to claim that, in general, healthy men and women have the same physically strength?
Comment by Mr. President
I have 10 minutes. They’re yours. I have no way of proving my strength, of course. Do you?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:44 pmHow far are you prepared to go just to try to prove me wrong?
Are you really going to claim that, in general, healthy men and women have the same physically strength?
Comment by Mr. President
Of course not, but I do know some women who could beat the absolute crap out of you. You seem reluctant to… reply to this. Afraid of looking bad? or actually, looking worse?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:45 pmIf Democrats want to drop DADT and Republicans want to keep it, how is that “bipartisan support� Sheesh.
Bill Clinton was happy with it, and he is a Democrat.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:49 pmTime’s a-wastin’, Mr P.
I’m 5′10″. How tall are you?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:51 pmF*cking right I don’t vote.
Comment by Mr. President
Whoa, hold the horses? You have the gall to come here and crap incesstantly on all of us, be endlessly smug, condescending and high-handed, and you DON’T EVEN VOTE? No wonder you’re afraid the women might beat you up. You spineless sack of shit.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pmThere were gays in the military under Alexander The Great and probably 100,000 years before.
I don’t mean “under” Alexander The Great, I mean “with” Alexander The Great. You know what I mean.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:52 pm#35
Jay,
I did not express any opinion on the wisdom or lack thereof of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” I was simply pointing out the rarity of the ocassion where ThinkProgress will argue that a policy formulated and initiated by President Bill Clinton “weaken[s] our national security.”
June 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pmYeah, it sure was a good idea to kick all those Arabian translators out of the military because of their sexual orientation, wasn’t it? Who wants to know what all those Iraqis are saying, anyway.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:54 pmIf Democrats want to drop DADT and Republicans want to keep it, how is that “bipartisan support� Sheesh.
Bill Clinton was happy with it, and he is a Democrat.
Comment by m12
He was just rying to make it easier for guys like you to enlist to fight the war you love so much.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:55 pmWhoa, hold the horses? You have the gall to come here and crap incesstantly on all of us, be endlessly smug, condescending and high-handed, and you DON’T EVEN VOTE? No wonder you’re afraid the women might beat you up. You spineless sack of shit.
Comment by the republic of stupidity
Can you believe that? I don’t understand that kind of thinking. We have the right to vote – -we absolutely must exercise that right.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:56 pmComment by keith g — June 5, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
I think you were right the first time :)
June 5th, 2007 at 11:56 pmI have 10 minutes. They’re yours. I have no way of proving my strength, of course. Do you?
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
I have been responding to Wayne on the other thread, what are proposing?
June 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmThere were gays in the military under Alexander The Great and probably 100,000 years before.
I don’t mean “under†Alexander The Great, I mean “with†Alexander The Great. You know what I mean.
Comment by keith g
Ok, I’m outta here laughing my butt off.
Ya’ll take care of Mr P, if he shows up again.
Goodnight!
June 5th, 2007 at 11:57 pmI’m 5′10″. How tall are you?
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
6′1″
225lbs
24y/o
June 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pmOur military recruiters are so desperate for bodies now thanks to an unnecessary quagmire that they are taking felons, high school dropouts, and the autistic—-but can’t have an excellent soldier with a different orientation.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:01 amnite zooey
June 6th, 2007 at 12:01 amCan you believe that? I don’t understand that kind of thinking. We have the right to vote – -we absolutely must exercise that right.
Comment by Zooey
Mr. P is an enabler. By refusing to vote, he helps bad politicians get into ffice, so he can then turn around and complain about them.
I think I skipped 2 local elections in the last 30 yrs. If nothing else, I want to go throw my brick, every time, so to speak.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:02 am6′1″
225lbs
24y/o
Comment by Mr. President
Geez, I guess that just means you’ll make a bigger thud when you hit the floor.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:03 amWhy hasn’t Daryll chimed in?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:04 amMr. P is an enabler. By refusing to vote, he helps bad politicians get into ffice, so he can then turn around and complain about them.
I think I skipped 2 local elections in the last 30 yrs. If nothing else, I want to go throw my brick, every time, so to speak.
Comment by the republic of stupidity — June 6, 2007 @ 12:02 am
How so?
What makes you think you can tell which politician is lying?
You’re the smug one, I’m being realistic.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:08 amI must have been thinking of Colin Farrell & Jared Leto in the movie version.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:09 amCan you believe that? I don’t understand that kind of thinking. We have the right to vote – -we absolutely must exercise that right.
Comment by Zooey — June 5, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Maybe you will one day, it’s kind of metaprogressive.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:11 amHow so?
What makes you think you can tell which politician is lying?
You’re the smug one, I’m being realistic.
Comment by Mr. President
Actually, no, it’s not a smug stance. Between 2 polticians, one must assume they’re both lying, sadly enough. To say there’s no difference between Politician A, who lied about a blowjob, but left us w/ a surplus on the books, working disaster relief, and managed to keep the country out of the military quagmire Politician B gladly lied us into is just blatantly silly.
I despise the general quality of elected official we have in this country at this time. Giving up and doing nothing, other than going on line and being glib, doesn’t strike me as being much of a stance to be proud of.
You appear to be willing to simply give up and armchair quarterback. Where’s the honor in that? Are you implying there is no hope in this world? Why do we try to solve any problems? Do you just crap in your own pants and sit there? Too much effort to go to the bathroom? Why bother to change, you’ll only soil those bloomers tomorrow, again.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:18 am6′1″
225lbs
24y/o
Comment by Mr. President
So your a lying fatass. Say anything, all you do is lie anyway. If you cop to 225lbs it’s no doubt 275. And you vote exactly the way your neocon Nazi handlers tell you too. You suck at bullshitting. Frankly, you suck at everything. Why don’t you just shut the fa kup now. You’re boring everybody.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:19 amSince the policy was instituted, at least 11,000 servicemembers, hundreds of whom had with key speciality skills such as training in Arabic, have left the military
The provided link to the source for this statement states:
So the hundreds of gay Arabic speakers that we hear about every time this story is mentioned don’t actually exist.
And the actual number of proficient speakers of key languages of importance…. is better left unspecified and instead mentioned alongside “hundreds” and “thousands” of gay troops.
We seem to see a lot of moaning and complaints, and even characterisation of these types of misrepresention in statements from other sources as outright lies from TP.
Hell, even mentioning the fact that Syria sponsors terrorist groups in the same conversation as 9/11 was mentioned apparently amounts to accusing Syria of conducting the 9/11 attacks as per a TP standards.
How about attempting to meet your own standards for avoiding misrepresentation there for a change. Or at the very least, just try a little less hard to promote the same misrepresentation at every available opportunity.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:19 amHe’s getting it from Gannon.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:20 amWink wink, who’s next you big 6′1″ 225hulk of a man you. Let me take YOU DOWN.
He was just trying to make it easier for guys like you to enlist to fight the war you love so much.
What, did Clinton know the Iraq War would happen back in the early 90s when he set the DADT policy?
What a smart guy! I’ll thank him.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:20 amMr. P, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
Any couch potato can just sit back and say “they’re all bad”. But if all the votes had been counted in Florida in 2000, we would not have lost trillions of dollars, about 3,500 of our troops, and given bin Laden more than he could ever dream of.
I can criticize Gore, Bill, and Hillary all day long—but the difference between what they would have done and what W has done is massive.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:21 amHey m12, let me try to get this through the shit between your ears.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:23 amClinton wanted to GET RID of banning gays, but the RETHUGs were totally against it. So, DADT is THE COMPROMISE between the LEFT position, openly serving GAYS in the Military, and the RIGHT position of bent over and taking in the ass from the Gays, but NOT allowing them to serve.
See Hypocrisy in action. Maybe you should ask Rev. Ted?
They have my vote. My wife is calling me. God Bless all of you this evening and I will continue to pray for you and your party.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:25 amWhat a smart guy! I’ll thank him.
Comment by m12
You do that, as soon as you get done enlisting to fight to good fight, m12.
As far as Clinton being smart, he was smart enough to not get the US mired in a civil war in Iraq, unlike George II.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:25 am22 million jobs created 8 years of Clinton. Zero net jobs created first four years of W. (Worst since
Great Depression caused by 12 Republican years of Harding/Coolidge/Hoover.) About 5 million W’s second term.
Clinton inherited unemployment rate of about 7.5% from GHWB, and took it down to 3.9%. GWB inherited that and took it up to 6.5%, then down to 4.5% and brags about how well he did.
Do you know budget deficit story, or do I need to tell that, too?
See, not all politicians are the same!
June 6th, 2007 at 12:32 amHey m12, let me try to get this through the shit between your ears.
Clinton wanted to GET RID of banning gays, but the RETHUGs were totally against it.
Actually, Democrat Sam Nunn was the leading proponent of the ban. These “rethugs” didn’t control either house of Congress.
The policy was crafted by Colin Powell and Clinton, when the former was still in the military. It was certainly bipartisan.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:34 amSo your a lying fatass. Say anything, all you do is lie anyway. If you cop to 225lbs it’s no doubt 275. And you vote exactly the way your neocon Nazi handlers tell you too. You suck at bullshitting. Frankly, you suck at everything. Why don’t you just shut the fa kup now. You’re boring everybody.
Comment by shane — June 6, 2007 @ 12:19 am
So now I’m the lying Cretan who said that everyone on Crete is a liar, is that right?
Why must you always provoke?
You really can’t get enough of me, can you shane?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:39 amWe don’t need 41,000 new recruits that bad.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:43 amThe origin of DADT, from the Democrats:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N16/nunn.16w.html
s the Senate Armed Services Committee began hearings Monday on President Clinton’s plan to end the prohibition of gays and lesbians serving in the military, committee chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) offered an olive branch on the explosive issue.
Nunn, while siding with the uniformed Pentagon leadership against Clinton on maintaining the longtime ban, suggested in a “CBS This Morning” interview that an interim six-month compromise reached in January could be made permanent.
If the White House agreed, such an arrangement would continue a new policy of not asking would-be recruits about their sexual orientation. But service members who then went public about their orientation would be subject to administrative discharge, as they were for decades before Clinton announced plans to change the policy by executive order.
Clinton ordered the Pentagon to draft an order by July, preventing discharge for the mere status of being gay but subjecting all service members to a rigid code of personal conduct.
Nunn, foreseeing problems of equal treatment for “hand-holding,” “kissing” gays and non-gays under a new code of conduct, said that “if people keep their private behavior private, if they don’t declare and advertise their private behavior,” they are currently able to stay in the service as long as they perform their duties. The interim compromise “may be a pretty good place to end up,” he said.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) jokingly congratulated Nunn for “taking an explosive issue and making it dull.”
June 6th, 2007 at 12:54 am6′1″
225lbs
24y/o
Comment by Mr. President — June 5, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
So what’s your excuse for not enlisting?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:54 amI actually contribute to the topic at hand at least 50% of the time, and care about what happens to this country.
Comment by Zooey
You are so sweet. :)
June 6th, 2007 at 12:58 amYou got 2 homosexual soldiers that are put out on a perimeter LP, and are they gazing over their weapons, keeping a good lookout?
NO, they’re in the bottom of the foxhole, sucking each other off.
This is the type of thing thats losing the war for America.
And women cant even do 40 push ups, how do you expect THEM to fight?
June 6th, 2007 at 1:08 amThis thread is incorrect. Ron Paul clearly said that we should be respecting individual liberty and that no person should be lumped into a group and then declared “bad”… Ron Paul said that if a person is disrupting the military mission either through homosexual acts or heterosexual acts then they should be dealt with on that basis…
June 6th, 2007 at 1:09 amComment by Jonsey Jones
Well basically you are insane… what is losing the occupation for America is that we were lied into it by a facist group of war criminals…but please go back to giving us juicy details about the gay things that those two soldiers are doing since you apparently have invested alot of time thinking about these details…
June 6th, 2007 at 1:11 amEr ah, jonsey you are GAY for even thinking that up, how many times a day do you have these gay thoughts? 10 or 20 or more, cause a clue you are G…A…Y, get it, we straights don’t even think of things like this.
Jonsey Jones is a closet gay, help him out guys
June 6th, 2007 at 1:15 amshould have been , “catch a clue…” sorry, I hate typos
June 6th, 2007 at 1:19 amThis thread is incorrect. Ron Paul clearly said that we should be respecting individual liberty and that no person should be lumped into a group and then declared “badâ€â€¦ Ron Paul said that if a person is disrupting the military mission either through homosexual acts or heterosexual acts then they should be dealt with on that basis…
Comment by Gerald Gibson — June 6, 2007 @ 1:09 am
That is exactly correct:
The title is deceiving. Ron Paul is the only conservative and he clearly was a pillar for constitutional rights and less dogma in the military. He believes in a complete separation of church and state and that is what is driving this question.
The rest are homophobic cowards who have been told they need to be anti-gay to get the Christian Right vote.
Ron Paul is also leading in every poll including CNN’s:
http://www.cnn.com/ ELECTION/ 2008/ debates/ scorecard/ gop.debate/
And MSNBCs that have over 15,000 voters:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/
June 6th, 2007 at 1:56 amI was disappointed in Paul’s answer. But his answer made it sound like he didn’t understand the policy. His answer made it sound as if the question was “do you think gay men should be able to hit on their fellow soldiers?” He said that we need to stop dividing people into classes and disruptive heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior should also not be allowed. So, it’s like he doesn’t get it on that issue.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:27 amBut when asked point blank, along with all the rest if the policy of DADT should be changed he remained silent too. But his more detailed answer, like I said, made it sound like he didn’t know what the policy actually is.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:29 amWell, nope. Ron Paul is not for teh ghey,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
Jeez. I cringed when I read the phrase “rogue judges.”
June 6th, 2007 at 2:39 amRon Paul is also leading in every poll including CNN’s:
Comment by Jack — June 6, 2007 @ 1:56 am
I think you meant to say “every poll at CNN”.
There’s a Pew poll out today where he didn’t even make the list as a serious contender and the lowest GOP that did had 4% support and less than half of those surveyed had ever heard of him.
Polls from places like Pew differ from CNN and MSNBC online polls in that they aren’t completely worthless in terms of all findings other than who can spam a website the most.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:40 amBTW – most libertarians want government out of marriage altogether. They want it to be a private matter between the married partners, and everyone would have their own say in their relationships, who would take over their finances upon death, or partnered insurance policies, etc. The “pure” libertarian position is that the government has no place in people’s personal relationships.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:44 amOnline and telephone polls are two different worlds. Who are they polling when the polls require land lines and listed numbers? Old people.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:45 amA valid statistical sample, not open to the abuse you see on the CNN poll.
What are you exactly ? Someone interested in the popularity of Ron Paul who isn’t aware of where this lies and the internet communities who organise things like this ?
Try some search results for his name from the day before the first Republican debate.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:46 amWhat the two debates (Democrats and Republicans) show is that Log Cabin Republicans are in a party where ALL the presidential contenders considers them to be LESS than other Republicans when it comes to military service and marriage. The Log Cabin Republicans have deliberately chosen NOT to be part of the Democratic Party that would welcome them!
Why anyone would want to be a Log Cabin Republican baffles me! Maybe they are just the gays who are into S/M. Masochism is the only explanation I can come up with! {:-)
June 6th, 2007 at 5:43 amapparently, waahhhhpublicans are also against serving in the military with, the exception of john mc cain. i hope romney wins the GOP nomination, that way he can explain why he spent two years during viet nam in france on a mormon “mission” instead of fighting
June 6th, 2007 at 6:38 amgood fudge packers don’t belong in the military
June 6th, 2007 at 7:47 amThe Spartans thought that ‘gays in the military’ was an excellent idea. Now say what you like about the Spartans, but they were brilliant fighters…
94, hilarious. Unintentionally?
June 6th, 2007 at 7:49 amI will add this post for the benefit to all the Lefties out there , you demwits that think that there is nothing wrong with gays in the military . the ban on gays in the military is the easiest way for a liberal boy who wakes up in boot camp and thinks “Oh My God What Have I Done ,I Am Going To Kill Myself If I Can’t Get Out Of This !!!! ” I just thought I would give you something to think about while you make your usual leftie comments and call your opposition childish names
June 6th, 2007 at 7:58 amdeport neocon filth you silly pussy mormons like you are concience objectors you idiot . he has nothing at all to explain but you do . how do you propose to deport me ? Pussy .
June 6th, 2007 at 8:01 amhterrya in reply to your posting #106 because like liberals, log cabin republicans know that among their ranks there are a lot of gentle people that would be slaughtered without someone to defend and protect them
June 6th, 2007 at 8:05 amHey Zooey here is another answer to your question on why I am so Bloodthirsty . When the Dust settles and the fight is over I will be the one still breathing .
June 6th, 2007 at 8:07 amBut when asked point blank, along with all the rest if the policy of DADT should be changed he remained silent too. But his more detailed answer, like I said, made it sound like he didn’t know what the policy actually is.
Comment by Alejandro
So? IF many military men just are not mature enough to handle being around openly gay men then the military mission comes first. It is bigoted, but it goes deeper than even racism. Just as this is no time to experiment with having a woman president this is no time to experiement with gayness in the military. AFTER society at large has gotten used to the idea of gays being normal equals THEN the military can be expected to follow along. As I said it goes deeper than the racism and the integration of blacks… there is even major bigotry among the black community against gays… this issue needs to be GROWN into our society and it just isnt there yet…
June 6th, 2007 at 8:37 amPolls from places like Pew differ from CNN and MSNBC online polls in that they aren’t completely worthless in terms of all findings other than who can spam a website the most.
Comment by Kilo
Completely untrue… I write Internet software myself… you can easily prevent spaming if you so choose… just because a poll lets you vote many times doesnt mean that they also are recording all your other votes… they could be discarding all extra votes from the same IP address…
June 6th, 2007 at 8:40 amHey Zooey here is another answer to your question on why I am so Bloodthirsty . When the Dust settles and the fight is over I will be the one still breathing .
Comment by Harry Truman
Or more likely in prison…
June 6th, 2007 at 8:43 am115,
How does society ‘grow into’ the acceptance of gay rights when the government refuses to acknowledge gay equality?
Yes, there is some prejudice in the military. But recent polling- shown a few weeks, maybe a month ago on TP- has indicated that most soldiers not only know someone gay in their unit, but are comfortable with that person’s sexuality.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:44 amIf the conservative canidates all approve of banning gays from the military, none of their friends will be required to serve. Ah, a perfect deferment for them all.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:45 amDid Wolf Blitzer really state the questions as they appear in the article? Our MSM has become truly complicite with the power bases. For some of you too young to remember, Walter Cronkite would not have worded the questions differently to “suit” the audience/or participants. Please everybody–complain loudly every time the press tries to even slightly change the language to please. For Shame Wolf! Bad Journalist! We are in for another terrible election cycle I fear. If I had a newspaper in my hand, I whack you on the snout–”For shame, Wolf! Bad Journalist!!” Maybe we should bring rolled-up newspapers to these events and get after the press…
June 6th, 2007 at 9:00 amHey Zooey here is another answer to your question on why I am so Bloodthirsty . When the Dust settles and the fight is over I will be the one still breathing .
Comment by Harry Truman
I’ll be there too, but I’ll be able to live with myself.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:24 amYeah except individuals registering multiple votes doesn’t even compare to interested groups hijacking a poll in terms of directed preferences.
Redstate and FreePers take an interest in directing their readers to one candidate in any poll of preferred Democrats and you’ll get the point.
You’re not designing anything circumventing this. Nor anything that would somehow produce a poll of a valid sample. What you’re actually talking about is more related to security, since there is nothing you can do in designing web or dbase applications that changes the fact there’s no such thing as an unbiased internet poll.
Have you seen the CNN polls we were referring to and their results ?
June 6th, 2007 at 9:25 amRead it with the knowledge that you’d never heard of Ron Paul 2 weeks ago. Then tell us what’s true or not.
There may be other reasons homosexuals should not be allow to serve in the US military.
Many men join the military because of the rich traditions in the different services. This is the “…halls of Montezuma†( a line from the Marines hymn) type stuff. Military service ties the members to the founding of the country – believed by most citizens to be a good thing – and is related to preserving the American way of life.
If you follow the reasoning of this Robert Koehler,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-koehler/the-crusaders_b_47556.html
the US military is being taken over by Evangelical Christians. As bitblt notes in his comments on Koehler’s article, it appears that you have to believe in something to be willing to serve in the military, and the Christians may be the only ones who believe in anything enough to be willing to serve.
Yeah! The irony of this isn’t lost on me.
Assuming Koehler is correct, allowing homosexuals to openly serve could be a way to insure the failure of the military. Associating homosexuals with the US military would be a huge disincentive for many men. I’d be one of them.
Plainly said: Who wants to fight so two men can have sex?
I don’t believe there are enough homosexuals willing to man the US military that this is really much of an issue. Some current estimates put the percentage of homosexuals in the general population as low as 2.8 percent. So this issue gets a lot of press but that’s about it.
The noise associated with the issue only proves that some homosexuals are going to whine until they get their way.
Let me expand that a bit. It only proves that some homosexuals want to make sure that everything is tainted – not worth preserving.
**** Caution *****
Link is to a conservative Christian think tank.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553
Article references the estimates on the number of lifetime homosexuals.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Another hijacked thread.
Come on people….can’t we stop feeding the trolls and just post our thoughts and opinions on the subject at hand. I am willing to bet the farm that if we stop feeding the trolls, they will go away.
How about a test. Let’s go one week without feeding the trolls and see what happens.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:42 amI signed this into law back in my first term, how come no one hates me because of this? Why are they going after Republicans when I put my signature on this bill.
Oh wait, I can do anything, even go against my campaign promises and the left still adores me, but if Republicans do the same thing, they are evil.
Yes, I forgot.
and by the way TP, the title to this thread is misleading and 100% wrong. None of the Republican Presidential candidates ever said that gays couldn’t serve in the military.
Please, listen to me, one of your gods and change the misleading, and outright lying of a title.
If I am wrong, please quote the Republican Presidential candidate that said, “Gays should not serve in the military”.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:47 amRepublicans are wrong on this issue. Start intense recruiting in the rainbow districts, let them wear purple or fuscia or whatever they want and send them to the desert to help win this thing.
Gay people are as competent a soldier as anybody straight. They will, however, probably have to rethink the group showers at boot camp.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:02 am126,
I’ sure there are actually a lot of gays in the military under the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy that have managed to serve despite a lack of hairdryers, pastel colours and make up. I don’t imagine that gays conforming to the Jack McFarland stereotype have much interest in military service.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:19 amThe glaring difference in how the two parties’ candidates view the character of our nation is so evident in this short video. The vision leaders from each party have for the United States of America couldn’t be contrasted more starkly.
When it comes down to it, the Democratic candidates tend to see all law-abiding and taxpaying citizens as deserving of their rights under the constitution (some waffle on specifics, granted) as well as worthy of the obligations of citizenry; Republicans do not grant those equal opportunities to specific groups of citizens, specifically GLBT, but ominously, the groups could be expanded. When one group of people is denied its rights, all groups can be marginalized and denied their rights.
Progressive candidates with vision for this country will help us break the neocon nightmare of the past decade. The citizens, the electorate, do not wish to regress to the bad old times of discrimination and marginalization of good Americans.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:07 amTo see that MSM will go to extraordinary lengths to block the truth, CNN last night ran a blog during the debate after it became apparent that no one likes the supposed top 3 Republican candidates, the site was TAKEN DOWN quicker than a nazi book burning.
Anyone want to see what was so Taboo???
One of probably a million bloggers simply saved the site and reposted it. These people have no clue what the Internet really is. Enjoy:
http://www.drawball.com/cnn-removed-this.html
June 6th, 2007 at 11:56 amCNN – the network that hosted the debate 3,500 votes
1. Who do you think won the debate?
Ron Paul (52%)
2. Who seemed to know most about the issues?
Ron Paul (51%)
3. Who had the best one-liner or comeback?
Ron Paul (33%)
4. Who had the most disappointing performance at the debate?
Rudy Giuliani (27%)
5. Whose performance was most surprising?
Ron Paul (31%)
6. Whose campaign got the biggest boost from the debate?
Ron Paul (46%)
7. Who was the snappiest dresser?
June 6th, 2007 at 12:44 pmMitt Romney (48%)
More info on the Ron Paul censorship:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/missingcomments.php
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/060607mediasidelines.htm
June 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pmHave you seen the CNN polls we were referring to and their results ?
Read it with the knowledge that you’d never heard of Ron Paul 2 weeks ago. Then tell us what’s true or not.
Comment by Kilo
Yes I voted on that pole and I voted Ron Paul… just as the pole was intended to be used… A biased preference is also known as … an opinion… and many people are of the opinion that they want Ron Paul and not any of the fakes… And THAT is why they go vote on the poles… if the republicans wanted say… McCain to be #1 on those poles they would make it so… I have been talking to people that dont get on the Internet and they have heard of Ron Paul and they cant believe someone actually speaks truth AND runs for the presidency… most people I know though think someone like him will likely end up dead…
June 6th, 2007 at 1:24 pm#94 – “You got 2 homosexual soldiers that are put out on a perimeter LP, and are they gazing over their weapons, keeping a good lookout?
NO, they’re in the bottom of the foxhole, sucking each other off.” Comment by Jonsey Jones — June 6, 2007 @ 1:08 am
Let me quess: you know this becuase you’re one of the 2 guys in that fox-hole, right?
I spent four years serving in the US Army. All my roommates knew I was gay. Not one of them had a poblem with it.
The only people I knew that ever had a problem with gay people in the military never knew there were gay people in the military.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm#123 – “allowing homosexuals to openly serve could be a way to insure the failure of the military” Comment by bitblt — June 6, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Yeah, look how fast the United Kingdom military has failed ever since they allowed gays to openly serve.
And look how fast the German military has failed ever since they allowed gays to openly serve.
And look how fast the Spanish military has failed ever since they allowed gays to openly serve.
And look how fast the Italian military has failed ever since they allowed gays to openly serve.
/sarcasm
June 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIf so many homosexuals want to serve in the military (which I strongly doubt!!) let them keep their personal lives in the closet. Frankly, it’s none of my business who people are attracted to and what kind of things trip their trigger…..and if they didn’t feel a weird compulsion to share everything with everybody, we’d be better off….
June 6th, 2007 at 7:29 pmDem soldier – Yep, when I think of robust fighting forces, the Brits, Germans, Spanish and Italians don’t leap to mind. I wouldn’t trust the any of the European military to guard a playground…..
June 6th, 2007 at 7:31 pmAre you retarded ? If not try figuring out WTF it is you are replying to.
Apart from the comments directed specifically to you pointing out that your assertions are wrong, which don’t appear to warrant a response, all other mentions of bias have been in relation to the fact that internet polls aren’t a valid representation of anything.
If you don’t want to understand this then don’t. Marvel at the overwhelming support shown in an internet poll for someone and again when he gets slaughtered in every valid poll that’s representative of what votes an election would bring.
Who didn’t see that coming.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:48 pmNo, you’re gonna need to be more specific in identifying the sarcasm in that post.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:52 pmWere you expecting that a single person here would have any knowledge of how well any of these examples have performed ? Or to know of their achievements since ? Do you ?
Okay, so they wanna kick out all tiehe hoomoosacksueuls out of the Armed Services. So just wondering if the Mittster was asked if his kids Tag, Mack, Log,Lake, and Coke were going to join up to replace the people being kicked out. Same goes for Rudy – is his son who hates him gonna join up? Lets not forget Tommy “mah hearing aid wasn’t working” Thompson’s kids. Same goes for Brownback and Huckabee.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm“deport neocon filth you silly pussy mormons like you are concience objectors you idiot . he has nothing at all to explain but you do . how do you propose to deport me ? Pussy .
Comment by Harry Truman — June 6, 2007 @ 8:01 am
by giving you a literacy test, then throwing you a going away party? seems deceptively easy. you must be the child “left behind”
June 7th, 2007 at 6:34 am“Dem soldier – Yep, when I think of robust fighting forces, the Brits, Germans, Spanish and Italians don’t leap to mind. I wouldn’t trust the any of the European military to guard a playground…..
Comment by valiant venus — June 6, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
pretty funny, assclown, your tin idol dummya bends over and sings “all hail the queen” whenever tony blair is in the room
June 7th, 2007 at 6:35 am#135 – “If so many homosexuals want to serve in the military (which I strongly doubt!!) let them keep their personal lives in the closet. Frankly, it’s none of my business who people are attracted to and what kind of things trip their trigger…..and if they didn’t feel a weird compulsion to share everything with everybody, we’d be better off….” Comment by valiant venus — June 6, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
OK, then make sure you don’t talk about your girlfriend. Who want’s to know you’re poking the stink hole? Not me! And if your wife squuzes out some children, then that sounds like a personal problem, not one that you share by keeping pictures posted at your desk or in your tank. Nobody wants to know that you’re a heterosexual! Your children and wife should be kept at home, not talked about while you’re in uniform!
Keep your private life to yourself, and everything will be just fine!
June 7th, 2007 at 9:03 am