The conservative opinion, yet again, finds itself left behind in the rear view mirror of history. Time and time again cons have sought to stand athwart history yelling “stop” while blacks got equal rights, women got equal rights, etc. And they just get left behind. This time its gays in the military.
Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said homosexuals who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for gays to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. Shortly after he took office in 1993, Clinton faced strong resistance to his campaign pledge to lift the military’s ban on allowing homosexuals to enlist. At that time, 67 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of conservatives opposed the idea. A majority of independents, 56 percent, and 45 percent of Democrats also opposed changing the policy.
A winning issue for Dems. As I’ve said for some time now.
How in the world would this be a winning issue for Dems?
Oliver, you made your comments as if majorities of Republicans and conservatives are still opposed to gays serving openly in the military and that is obviously not the case.
You also need to be continually reminded that it has been Democrats who have chickened out on the issue over the last 15-20 years giving lip service to gays but never really doing anything. Instead they’ve crossed their fingers hoping for the courts to do the work for them and that’s the mark of cowardice.
“You also need to be continually reminded that it has been Democrats who have chickened out on the issue over the last 15-20 years giving lip service to gays but never really doing anything. Instead they’ve crossed their fingers hoping for the courts to do the work for them and that’s the mark of cowardice.”
So Democrats are not doing enough to help gays serve openly in the military, but Republicans are actively trying to stop them. Yet you think this is a losing issue for Democrats. Wow. … Just wow.
but Republicans are actively trying to stop them.
Yes, 64% of Republicans support gays serving openly in the military, but they are actively trying to stop them.
Wow is right.
Yet you think this is a losing issue for Democrats.
Uh, no dumb-as-a-stump. It’s not a winning issue for Democrats because it’s not really an issue anymore. Since just about all majorities of Americans support it, if “don’t ask, don’t tell” were scrapped tomorrow, there would be a collective shrug across the country for the most part. You can’t get mileage out of an issue….that isn’t an issue.
Me:” “but Republicans are actively trying to stop them.”
Jay: “Yes, 64% of Republicans support gays serving openly in the military, but they are actively trying to stop them.
Wow is right.”
I know this is tough for you to understand but… The Republicans are in charge right now. “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” isn’t going to be scraped tomorrow, because the Republicans are in charge. Who do you think are gay baiting right now? Republicans or Democrats?
Me: “Yet you think this is a losing issue for Democrats.”
Jay: “Uh, no dumb-as-a-stump. It’s not a winning issue for Democrats because it’s not really an issue anymore. Since just about all majorities of Americans support it, if “don’t ask, don’t tell” were scrapped tomorrow, there would be a collective shrug across the country for the most part. You can’t get mileage out of an issue….that isn’t an issue.”
… Oh dear god.
Most Americans agree the program should be scrapped, so it is an issue until it is scrapped.
How can you not get that?
It wouldn’t be an issue if most people agreed with the status quo and no one was fighting to change it.
The Republicans are in charge right now. “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” isn’t going to be scraped tomorrow, because the Republicans are in charge.
I know you’re from Canada and all, so perhaps your ignorance of the American political process, but doing away with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has to originate in Congress. It cannot be overturned by the executive branch. Congress in case you didn’t know, is controlled by Democrats. And Democrats have been in control for over 18 months now. Do you know how many times the Democratically controlled Congress has introduced legislation to do away with “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
Zero. Zip. Zilch.
They’re finally having a military sub-committee hearing on the issue, but the Democrats are too chicken-shit (as they have been) to make this an election year issue.
Most Americans agree the program should be scrapped, so it is an issue until it is scrapped.
It is not an issue that the Democrats can get mileage from. How can you not get that?
It cannot be overturned by the executive branch. Congress in case you didn’t know, is controlled by Democrats.
As a caveat here, the Democrats control congress by almost as thin a margin as is possible, not exactly a ripe time to go pushing an agenda. Especially with a president who’s suddenly discovered his veto pen. And especially with some of the weenies in charge right now.
Um…..’scuse me there for a second…It wasn’t conservatives yelling “stop” at blacks. And the only thing we object to now are double-standards in what people can and can’t say, and racist ideas like affirmative action. If you think I”m a racist because I don’t want to get screwed out of a job because I’m white, then you’re the bigot.
How in the world would this be a winning issue for Dems?
Shorter Jay: The Southern Strategy totally rocks!!
As a caveat here, the Democrats control congress by almost as thin a margin as is possible, not exactly a ripe time to go pushing an agenda. Especially with a president who’s suddenly discovered his veto pen.
But that’s the whole point. If it were such a winning issue, Democrats would push it and if Bush vetoed the measure it would put that issue on the table for the election. My guess is, despite the fact that Bush said a year ago he still agreed with don’t ask, don’t tell, he very well might sign a law that overturned the policy at this point.
Question for Commander Bunnypants and/or McCain (and any other Right Wing Jackass): Several US Army Arabic translators were discharged because they prefer the company of men to the company of women. Is America more safe or less safe because of this decision?
he very well might sign a law that overturned the policy at this point.
And lose whoever still supports him. What about the dream of a Constitutional Amendment to ban Gay Marriage? What ever happened to that?
<bA new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey—conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue–finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree
Nancy Pelosi won’t let us drill. Why is the democrat party constantly in the “rear view mirror of history”?
/consistency check
…it wasn’t conservatives yelling stop at blacks.
You’re absolutely right, people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and John Eastland were regular Ted Kennedy/George McGovern-types (rolls eyes). Seriously, yes, most segregationists were Democrats, but they were conservative Democrats. They had more more in commmon ideologically with the John Birch Society than with Americans for Democratic Action.
It wasn’t conservatives yelling “stop” at blacks.
This is right up there with Washington’s cherry tree as startlingly persistent political fantasies.
Nancy Pelosi won’t let us drill. Why is the democrat party constantly in the “rear view mirror of history”?
Because oil is the wave of the future and all…
Got it parthenon,
Listen to the will of the people when you you think it is progressive
That just about sums up the philosophy of most of the democrat party: We’ll listen to you when WE think you are right….
Nice. Maybe OW can make up a t-shirt or somethiing:
“Obama: Hope and change HE can believe in…..”
Listen to the will of the people when you you think it is progressive
That just about sums up the philosophy of most of the democrat party: We’ll listen to you when WE think you are right….
You seem to understand it quite well, sir. That’s one of the reasons we don’t live in a direct democracy, to protect against a ‘tyranny of the majority.’ I should hope the government would only listen to the people when it thinks they’re right, because lord knows the people sometimes advocate some pretty ridiculous nonsense.
I would suggest to you that popularity of an opinion is not generally validation for that opinion.
I know you’re from Canada and all, so perhaps your ignorance of the American political process, but doing away with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has to originate in Congress.
Uh, no. It’s by executive order, which originates from the President.
Thanks, Jay & Co. for making my point. Conservatives eventually come around on these social issues after decades in opposition. Liberals have been the ones pushing the boundaries on equal rights for minorities, women, and the like, and as those rights were recognized conservatives realized that they were being left behind in their opposition. It’s great that they come around, but let’s not pretend that they’ve been at the forefront of any of these issues. Conservatives like William F. Buckley considered MLK a negro agitator for much of his time in the public eye and only in the last couple decades has the right now tried to appropriate MLK as one of their own.
As far as the parties go, I’m the first to say the Democrats are far too timid and cautious on these social issues. But there again the parties distinguish themselves from each other. The Democrats stick it in neutral, but the Republicans mash down the brakes and pull the handbrake as well for extra effect. Neither position is ideal, but I’d rather the Democrat eventually hitting the gas at some point rather than trying to hit the brakes as the nation moves forward.
Nancy Pelosi won’t let us drill. Why is the democrat party constantly in the “rear view mirror of history”?
/consistency check
Last time I checked, off-shore drilling isn’t a civil rights issue.
I would suggest to you that popularity of an opinion is not generally validation for that opinion.
Excellent parth, now please note Oliver’s thesis for this thread.
The circle is complete…..
Of course Oliver also forgets that it was the Democrat party that stood in the way of the Civil Rights act of ‘64, and people like the Grand Kleagle Sen Byrd who finally “came around” on social issues.
He is a Yankee fan. Don’t waste too much energy debating anything with a Yankee fan; you might get better results teaching a houseplant to mix you a drink.
Uh, no. It’s by executive order, which originates from the President.
Uh. No it wasn’t. Clinton issued an executive order at first, but it was then rescinded and the legislation that came out of the Democratically controlled Congress is what Clinton signed. Get your facts straight.
The Democrats stick it in neutral, but the Republicans mash down the brakes and pull the handbrake as well for extra effect. Neither position is ideal, but I’d rather the Democrat eventually hitting the gas at some point rather than trying to hit the brakes as the nation moves forward.
Oh please. The Republicans may not be right on the issue (I support gays being able to openly serve), but at least you know where they stand. Democrats talk talk talk but never actually DO anything. It’s nothing but lip service and in ways, worse than the GOP position.
Excellent parth, now please note Oliver’s thesis for this thread.
The circle is complete…..
Look, why are you directing me to what Oliver wrote? Because we’re both ‘liberals?’ If you have an issue with that, talk to him. How about I respond to you, you respond to me?
Leaving aside the fact that Oliver never advocates unfettered majority rule in this post.
Of course Oliver also forgets that it was the Democrat party that stood in the way of the Civil Rights act of ‘64, and people like the Grand Kleagle Sen Byrd who finally “came around” on social issues.
Do you think the Democratic and Republican parties have identical programs to the parties of today?
duh: I’ve already adressed the serial conservative miscontruing of Democrat = Liberal with regards to the civil rights and suffrage movements a million times. Short version 1960s Democratic Party was conservative, not liberal. Liberal Republicans and Democrats supported civil rights. Conservatives left the Democratic party after LBJ signed Civil Rights Act, joined GOP and began southern strategy. Liberal Republicans were driven out by Goldwater nutjobs, joined the Democratic party.
Jay: Yes, far better to be against a good thing than not be a strong advocate for the right position. That makes as much sense as a sack of mud.
Also, Oliver doesn’t mention the parties (except in the blockquote), so talking about Democratic opposition to the Civil Rights Act is sort of irrelevant.
Shorter Jay: It’s ok the GOP are a bunch of bigots because they have clearly demonstrated their bigotry.
duh writes: “Of course Oliver also forgets that it was the Democrat party that stood in the way of the Civil Rights act of ‘64″
Your stupid really, really burns. LBJ was POTUS in ‘64. He pushed it through Congress and actually lost a lot of his support with southern Dems, which was kind of a good thing in the long run as they all eventually became Republicans. (As someone else mentioned, please wiki “Southern Strategy” for a basic history lesson on this stuff. You obviously need it.)
More to the point, while Oliver is being a little over-the-top (it is the intarweb, after all), nothing you or Jay has said defeats his larger point — Dems are on the side of history when it comes to these issues, Republicans (with some exceptions) usually aren’t. Dems as a party could be better on these issues of fairness and equality, but Republicans usually end up looking like small-minded bigots in the end.
Jay writes: “at least you know where they stand.”
Usually in the way of progress on these issues. As for “doing something,” I’d refer you to the Civil Rights Act (for starters). I’m sure you think blacks are “deluded” into voting overwhelmingly for Dems, but the fact is the Democratic party post-1964 is the one that’s done things for them and other minorities. And there’s also a reason that bigots like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms became Republicans.
Dems are on the side of history when it comes to these issues
Only 63% of democrats voted for the 1964 act. 80% of republicans did. Is that being on “the side of history”?
but back to the original post. When you all agree that we should have a totally coed military, coed bunking,coed showers etc, then we can have gays serving openly. But until you manage to completely repeal human sexual behavior, it isn’t a good idea.
Dude, like I suggested, google “Southern Strategy.” The political landscape changed dramatically due to the racial politics of the 1960’s.
But honestly, I’m a white guy. Don’t take my word for it. Just ask some of your African American friends what they think. Do they just love and adore today’s Democratic party? Probably not. But it’s a hell of a lot better than the party of Jesse Helms. Simple as that.
But until you manage to completely repeal human sexual behavior, it isn’t a good idea.
This is an excellent point. Because there have never ever ever been any gay soldiers in the US Military. Ever. Also, you can see what having gay soldiers has done to the Israeli, United Kingdom (and other) military units. Totally crippled them. Great job duh, you’re on the right side of this issue, just as you were on Civil Rights in the 60’s. You’re the awesome.
S’funny how for all their bluster about the military Republicans tend to know very little about how it works these days. While combat ops are critical, the majority of the troops have the equivalent of office-type jobs (intelligence, logistics, planning, etc.). Their sexual identity has nothing to do with what they’re being paid to do.
The whole anecdote of “ZOMG what happens if they have to share a foxhole!!!” is just a myth. But Republicans aren’t ones to let things like facts stand in the way of their bigotry.
“Only 63% of democrats voted for the 1964 act.”
Yes, and the 37% in oppposition were conservatives, having more in common with the John Birchers than with the Ted Kennedy/George McGovern/Dennis Kucinich wing of the party. The 63% in support were moderates or liberals. Oliver’s post was more about ideology than political party, anyway.
Also remember that, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the only major party candidate to get the nomination and oppose this legislation was a Republican, and quite an iconic one at that (Goldwater). Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama all support this bill.
jaim, more than a decade in the military, clearly you have never served.
Google “aircraft carrier”, and check out the berthing arrangements , 6 month deployments dude. It is one thing to share a shower with a guy, it is another thing to share it with a guy who is looking at your a**. Like I said, I am all for it once we are socially “advanced” enough that we do it with men and women as well.
When you all agree that we should have a totally coed military, coed bunking,coed showers etc, then we can have gays serving openly. But until you manage to completely repeal human sexual behavior, it isn’t a good idea.
What are you a-skeered of, duh? That some big, butch gay man is gonna take a liking to you?
No more scared than that 19 year old e-3 girl standing in the showers next to the big,butch hetero guy
Is there a reason why the military can’t have separate showers (and I ask this as an actual, not just a rhetorical question. I have never been in the military, so maybe there is an reason that I am unaware of that would indeed prohibit such a set-up)?
No, probably not. But now we get to the point of “why?” The military isn’t a social experiment (although they have been on the cutting edge of true racial equality for years). It probably made sense to incorporate women into it, as they are 50% of the population. But homosexuals are maybe 6%? I served with a number of homosexuals, and it wasn’t a big deal. Wny not serve kosher meals? How about sinks in the latrine so Muslims can wash their feet? What about calls to prayer 5 times a day.
Eventually this becomes reductio ad absurdum…but I think you see my point.
I served with a number of homosexuals, and it wasn’t a big deal.
Then why are you trying to make it a big deal?
Yes, far better to be against a good thing than not be a strong advocate for the right position. That makes as much sense as a sack of mud.
Chuckle…”strong advocate”
Democrats: “Is it politically safe for us to send legislation to the President to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’? It is? Great! Let’s do it!”
Nobody said it was better Oliver. Please read for content. Bleating about how you’re “for” something without actually doing anything about it until it is political expedient is nothing but political cowardice. It’s not something politicians should wear as a badge of honor.
When LBJ signed ‘The Civil Rights Act’ and declared, “We just lost the South for a generation”, that was a guy having political balls of steel. The Democrats now waiting for the polls to shift on the issue before acting is weak.
But homosexuals are maybe 6%?
Translation: It’s ok to oppress a minority if they’re a small enough minority.
Nobody said it was better Oliver.
Except you.
The Democrats now waiting for the polls to shift on the issue before acting is weak.
I agree, and that’s why I think we should have a multi-party system. Give people more options on who should run. It would also get rid of the problem of “undecided” voters, since people who can’t decide between 2 significantly different people would die from a heart attack trying to decide between 20.
Except you.
Well, then you have a problem reading for content as well.
I agree, and that’s why I think we should have a multi-party system. Give people more options on who should run. It would also get rid of the problem of “undecided” voters, since people who can’t decide between 2 significantly different people would die from a heart attack trying to decide between 20.
I agree.
It is now snowing in Florida and it is 95 degrees at the North Pole.
Jay: “I know you’re from Canada and all…”
And yet I know more about how your government works than you do.
Jay: “but doing away with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has to originate in Congress. It cannot be overturned by the executive branch. Congress in case you didn’t know, is controlled by Democrats.”
But they don’t have enough to override a veto, which would happened thanks to the REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
Jay: “But that’s the whole point. If it were such a winning issue, Democrats would push it and if Bush vetoed the measure it would put that issue on the table for the election.”
Ha ha ha. …
HA HA HA. …
One second. Almost done…
HA HA HA.
Phew…
Jay, do you realize what you just said? You said that it can’t be a winning issue because if it was, the Democrats would fight for it. The Democrats. Fight. Where the fuck have you been the last 8 years.
You have to admit, your logic is flawed here.
it isn’t oppression zython, it simply isn’t bending over for every special interest group out there.
but your reaction reminds me a bit of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434
And yet I know more about how your government works than you do.
Not even close (”Republicans are in charge.” Duh). Care to tell everybody what regulations IndyMac violated or what laws they broke?
But they don’t have enough to override a veto, which would happened thanks to the REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
And? You push on issues regardless of whether not there is a threatened veto. Again, if it is a WINNING ISSUE, then a veto would only make things even better politically for Democrats in November.
You said that it can’t be a winning issue because if it was, the Democrats would fight for it. The Democrats. Fight. Where the fuck have you been the last 8 years.
In case you’ve forgotten, there is a presidential election this November. Again, you think this is a WINNING ISSUE. If Bush were to veto, then McCain would be asked what he thought (and his vote would be on record). If McCain had the same view as Bush (let’s assume at this moment they both still support DADT), then Obama could easily say, “I’ll sign that bill into law.”
It’s a WINNING ISSUE, remember?
“Why not serve kosher meals”?
I don’t know, you tell me. Sounds pretty reasonable.
“How about sinks in the latrine so Muslins can wash their feet”?
Again, sound pretty reasonable to me. Why wouldn’t there be sinks in the latrine in the first place? Isn’t that common sanitary practice…to wash up after one has done his/her “business”?
“What about calls to prayer 5 times day”?
Since I’ve read articles that have mentioned that there are Muslim chaplains in the military, I would think that something along these lines can be accommodated.
Well Daniel, you have made a couple of great points
One, you have demonstrated that you have no idea what goes on in the military
Two, you are a walking poster-boy for why having an Obambi presidency would be a national form of Hari-Kari.
My only hope is that the democrat party takes all your ideas on as it’s formal platform for military reform
“One, you have demonstrated that you have no idea what goes on in the military.”
So why don’t you enlighten me and answer my questions?
“Two, you are a walking poster-boy for why having an Obambi presidency would be a national form of Hari-Kari”.
First of all, I am a man, not a boy. Secondly, what in the world do my questions have to do with an Obama presidency?
“My only hope is that the democrat party takes all your ideas on as it’s formal platform for military reform.”
Well, the anti-sink-in-latrines crowd is a large constituency, so the Democratic Party should take your advice and really be careful when dealing with such an issue (rolls eyes).
tell you what, join the Army, find the answer to your questions yourself.
tell you what, join the Army, find the answer to your questions yourself.
How about you go first?
it isn’t oppression zython,
Yes it is.
it simply isn’t bending over for every special interest group out there.
What about Jews, are they a “special interest group”? Your stance on kosher meals seems to indicate so.
I would go on, but I must be keeping you. Those crosses won’t burn themselves, you know.
Two, you are a walking poster-boy for why having an Obambi presidency would be a national form of Hari-Kari.
This is what dildos like duh said about a Clinton presidency. Yeah, all that peace and prosperity destroyed the U.S.
Keep on keepin on, Einstein!
zython, been there, done that more than a decade
yes, jews are a special interest group. I don’t expect the military to cater to them anymore than to any other very small group. And nobody who expects to be an othordox observant jew joins the us army either. Funny, you don’t see a bunch of Orothordox jews demanding kosher meals, and days off on the Shabat do you?
Nice try equating not catering to every special interest group as some sort of bigotry too. It’s silly, but nice try.
CSS: The Democrats. Fight. Where the fuck have you been the last 8 years.
Couldn’t agree more.
The Democrats have been consistent in nothing as much as absolutely failing to fight even when they have the majority in Congress, the vast majority of the public behind them and an astoundingly unpopular president on the other side.
The Democrats? Fight? The Democrats???
“Not even close (”Republicans are in charge.” Duh). Care to tell everybody what regulations IndyMac violated or what laws they broke?”
I’ll defer to the FBI on that one. After all, they are the people investigating them. And yes, the FBI is investigating them.
(On a side note, I shouldn’t have said they broke the law. After all, until they are found guilty, that is not technically true.)
“It’s a WINNING ISSUE, remember?”
Yes it is, but the Democrats are losers, remember?
Again, your argument is based entirely on the Democrats not being completely gutless and standing up to the president. As long as you are using that bit of fantasy and the central point to your argument, you will be using faulty reasoning.
zython, been there, done that more than a decade
I have no way of verifying that one way or the other.
Nice try equating not catering to every special interest group as some sort of bigotry too. It’s silly, but nice try.
Ok, a better way to make you understand. By your logic, it should be OK to forbid Jews from serving in the military. After all, like homosexuality, it doesn’t impact performance or employee safety. Plus, Jews are a smaller minority, so all the better! After all, they’re just a “special interest group”, not actual people or anything.
Dude, what are we going to do when all those negros join the military? Surely they’re going to force us to replace all the bugle music with jazz and rap! And those Asians are going to replace MREs with sushi! And Lord knows what the hispanics will do!!!
Pretty soon we’ll end up with a military where any able bodied American who wants to serve and can meet the requirements to serve can serve.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE GONNA DO?
“yes, Jews are a special interest group.”
So how was the skinhead rally?
“I have no way of verifying that one way or the other.”
It wouldn’t be surprising that someone who feels comfortable writing that Jews are a “special interest group” would also be someone who lies about past military service. Not exactly an inconsistency between the two things in terms of a person’s character.
they wouldn’t let me in, I’m jewish.
You want to join the military, great. Here are the rules. You follow them, you join.
The military isn’t a social experiment proving how “culturally aware” we are.
Why do liberals believe that whole world has to bend over backwards for their every little quirk and desire?
What about fat people? Why discriminate against them? How about non-able bodied folks? Where is your sensitivity you bigoted pigs……….?
I am still waiting for you to all agree that we should have an all- coed military…haven’t heard it yet though.
What about fat people? Why discriminate against them? How about non-able bodied folks? Where is your sensitivity you bigoted pigs……….?
They can still serve in the military. Not as infantry, mind you, but being handicapped doesn’t prevent one from being a good Arabic translator (though for some reason, being gay does).
I am still waiting for you to all agree that we should have an all- coed military…haven’t heard it yet though.
And we’re still waiting for you to tell us a practical reason why gays can’t serve in the military. Fancy that.
“they wouldn’t let me in, I’m Jewish.”
If you believe that there are actually such things as “othordox” or “Orothordox” Jews, then no, you aren’t (and if those were just unfortunate spelling errors, then you’re a self-hating Jew if you believe your co-religionists represent a “special interest group”).
“What about fat people? Why discriminate against them?”
Because, due to their girth, they would not be able to perform the physical rigors the training required to be a member of any branch of the military would require. This argument doesn’t apply to non-fat homosexuals.
“How about non-able bodied folks?”
See my response to the “What about fat people?” question.
“Where is your sensitivity you bigoted pigs….”?
Funny. The bigoted pig calls those who disagree with him here “bigoted pigs.”
“I am still waiting for you to all agree that we should have an all-coed military…”
Who cares what you’re “waiting” for?
“The military isn’t a social experiment proving how ‘culturally aware’ we are.”
What experiment? Other countries let gays join and social order didn’t collapse.
If they can do the job, they should be allowed to do it. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Also, why does bigotry and stupidity go hand in hand?
Why do liberals believe that whole world has to bend over backwards for their every little quirk and desire?
I’ve always felt that the hallmark of a reasonable individual is somebody who can state his opponent’s position without oversimplifying or using a straw man. I wonder whether you have that ability. It’s harder than it sounds, believe it or not. I recommend you give it a shot.
A correct phrasing of your question would read — “Why do liberals insist that differences irrelevant to job performance not be considered when determining who is eligible for a particular job?”
“Why do liberals believe that whole world has to bend over backwards for their every little quirk and desire?”
The “pro-life” pharmacists who demand to have the right, without losing their job or even being disciplined in any way, to refuse to give people with legal prescriptions abortion-inducing or even just (gasp!) birth control pills are “liberals”? Doubt it. Also, since when is the U.S. military (or the military of any other country for that matter) the “whole world”? I thought conservatives like duh were against “world government” (the military is part of the government, after all).
“The military isn’t a social experiment proving how “culturally aware” we are.”
You’re kidding, aren’t you? Our whole country is a “social experiment.” You might have read about it.
I want to add some words to one of the sentences in my second-to-last post, the “See my response to the ‘What about fat people’ question”? It should be “See my response to the ‘What about fat people’ question, but replace the word ‘girth’ with the words ‘condition that makes them non-able bodied?’” There, better!
Al Qaeda and the Taliban don’t let gays serve in their military arms either.
And for offshore drilling: companies are allowed to drill offshore for oil. Whoever claimed Pelosi was blocking it was either ignorant or a liar. They just aren’t allowed to drill everywhere they want to. They also have more offshore leases and sites to drill than they can right now. So stop trying to act in panic.
Only 63% of democrats voted for the 1964 act. 80% of republicans did. Is that being on “the side of history”?
Here is a breakdown of the Congressional voting on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, revealing a north-south divide within both parties.
House bill:
Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
Senate bill:
Southern Democrats: 1-20
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 45-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5
The military is so totally gay anyway. I mean come on, you know it’s true.
yea parth I totally agree.
Which is why I wouldn’t base an argument on typos due to aging eyes, or say things like
Dude, what are we going to do when all those negros join the military? Surely they’re going to force us to replace all the bugle music with jazz and rap! And those Asians are going to replace MREs with sushi! And Lord knows what the hispanics will do!!!
Is that the sort of straw man you are referring to?
“The military isn’t a social experiment proving how “culturally aware” we are.”
No it isn’t.
What does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Should we talk about the gays who are fluent in Arabic who were then drummed out of the service?
You really think this is about “a social experiment”? I hope the soldiers in Iraq who are getting inferior intelligence as a result of antiquated bigotry appreciate this viewpoint.
OW is making the point that the military has a history of discrimination based upon irrelevant and essentially cosmetic differences between prospective members. I have read him on numerous occasions state his opponent’s argument rather succinctly and well, and so I am more inclined to grant him license in a bit of satirical exaggeration.
I have not read you do the same. If you are doing as he does and exaggerating in a humorous fashion to make your point, well all right then, I misread you.
Let us leave behind the distractions, and typographical errors. We could all use a secretary. If you get the time or inclination, I have a few questions for you (Excuse my repetition if you answered these earlier in the thread; unfortunately I don’t have the time to read it all – such is life) -
1) Do you feel homosexuality is a difference relevant to the ability to do any job in the military? If so, why? Specifically.
2) If not, do you believe the military should continue to discriminate based upon a difference that is irrelevant to the job? If so, why? Specifically.
3) If it does not harm any non-member in the military to ‘cater’ to a special interest group (i.e. allowing prayer-time in non-combat situations, installing foot baths, etc.), why should they not be accomodated (especially since we are a nation of immigrants)? Are we really still fighting the ‘melting pot v. nativism’ battles of the early twentieth century?
I was going to post the ‘64 Civil Right Act vote broken down by region, but I see buma beat me to it. Those numbers put the lie to the claims of conservatives that somehow they were heroes of the Civil Rights movements.
The fact is that Northern Republicans were less likely to support the Civil Rights Act than their Northern Democractic counterparts, and Southern Republicans were less likely to support the Civil Rights Act than their Southern Democratic counterparts. Southern Republicans couldn’t even muster one damn vote for the bill.
1. Yes. The job entails living in close quarters with other soldiers. My point regarding the coed facilities is to point out that we currently separate the sexes because of the sexual tension that would be created if we didn’t. As a society we have decided that nude people who may be sexually attractive to each other deserve some sort of privacy. Now you may say this can happen in a bathroom or gym shower, and I would agree. However, you aren’t forced to shower there every day for six months as you might be deployed on an aircraft carrier for instance. I don’t consider homosexuality a defect anymore than I consider being male or female a defect, but I recognize that we are not yet willing to become a unisex society, and until we are I say “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a pretty reasonable accommodation.
2. I disagree with your first point, so I also think that the premise of this question is incorrect.
3. It does “harm” people. It costs money, it means that in the rigid world of the military you must have a different set of standards for each member based upon their religions. Again, the military serves a purpose, it is not some sort of employment project. If and when we get to a point that in order to maintain our end strength we NEED to accommodate these sort of preferences, then perhaps the cost/benefit works out.
I would also argue that the military was well ahead of the rest of society in terms of setting equality standards. The military became very race neutral much more quickly than the rest of the country.
Finally, this country is a great country because of the “melting pot”. A melting pot infers a homogeneity that in fact is what keeps this country vibrant. This idea that we all get to break up into our various “tribes” and just keep doing things our own way is part of what is threatening to destroy what made this country great. And I speak as a first generation american.
Jay @ 9.23: Do you know how many times the Democratically controlled Congress has introduced legislation to do away with “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
Zero. Zip. Zilch.
False. H.R. 1246, the Democratic bill to repeal DADT, has 143 cosponsors this year, up from 122 in the last Congress (when it was introduced as H.R. 1059).
“It means that in the rigid world of the military you must have a different set of standards for each member based upon their religions.”
So each member of the military has a different religion? You really remembered to to drink your “stupid argument” juice, didn’t you (oh, and if your “typos” comment was directed at me, I acknowledged that they might be typos and criticized your comment in that context).
please read carefully, daniel. See how I said, “a different set of standards…” What that means is that the Muslims get to pray five times a day, the Jews get special food, the mormons can wear their own underwear etc, etc. People can have whatever religion they want, just don’t demand that we bend over backwards to accommodate them. It is a pretty simple idea.
“What that means is that the Muslims get to pray five times da day the Jews get special food, the mormons can wear their own underwear etc, etc. People can have whater religion they want, just don’t demand that we bend over backwards to accomodate to accommodate them. It is a pretty simple idea.”
None of the three things that you mentioned constitute “bending over backwards” to accommodate Mormons, Muslims, or Jews in my book. We’ll just have to disagree on that matter, bigoted pig.
“1. Yes. The job entails living in close quarters with other soldiers. My point regarding the coed facilities is to point out that we currently separate the sexes because of the sexual tension that would be created if we didn’t.”
No, it’s because a lot of women get sexually harassed in the military, or worse.
citybeat.com/2002-08-22/news2.shtml
This has nothing to do with coed living arrangement, it has to do with dehumanizing soldiers to the point where they will kill anyone they are ordered to.
Sexual tension. Good god.
If you think gays shouldn’t be allowed to serve in the military because they might try and have sex with the straight soldiers, then you are clearly delusional.
In that case, question 4–
Even if you were correct in the problems gays in the military would create (something of which I am not convinced), why would we not follow the lead of those other countries who have obviously found acceptable ways to handle any friction? After all why would any employer cut themselves off from an available talent pool for something unrelated? Being gay doesn’t mean one can’t fire a gun, or watch a radar screen, or fly a helicopter.
We are currently the preeminent military force in the world. We are the standard against which others are measured.
Why follow the lead of second rate armies?
We cut our military off from that talent because for the most part we don’t need it yet. When we need it, it may be worth making the accommodation necessary for it to work. And remember, we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life….
And remember, we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life….
But we’ll only throw you out for it if it’s the wrong sort of sex life.
Why follow the lead of second rate armies?
The IDF is a second rate army? Say what?
Dangerous line of thinking, if you ask me. We may spend almost half the world’s total funding on military expenditures, but that doesn’t mean we can’t pick and choose from the good personnel decisions of other countries to maximize how good our military could be.
We cut our military off from that talent because for the most part we don’t need it yet. When we need it, it may be worth making the accommodation necessary for it to work.
Weren’t the marines relaxing their standards on taking felons a few months back?
we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life….
That’s right. We know that no one in the military talks about their sex lives. Ever.
duh, let’s not pretend that the “we don’t want to know about your sex life” restriction applies equally to everyone.
“We are currently the preeminent military force in the world. We are the standard against which others are measured.”
Wrong.
Biggest? Yes. Best? No.
“Why follow the lead of second rate armies?”
You’ve lost to Canada in training exercises. In fact, the sniper with the longest confirmed kill was a Canadian. Don’t think you can’t learn anything from other countries’ armed forces.
“We cut our military off from that talent because for the most part we don’t need it yet.”
If this was true, there would be no need for stop-loss. Or relaxing standards for new recruits.
You are wrong here.
“When we need it, it may be worth making the accommodation necessary for it to work. And remember, we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life….”
You can’t possibly believe this. In fact, you could be celibate and gay and still get kicked out of the military.
“…And remembr, we aren’t cutting anyone off, simply telling them that we don’t want to know about your sex life…”
Stupid and false argument, no matter which context (homosexual or heterosexual) one looks at it. A virginal but openly gay soldier-who, by definition, doesn’t have a “sex life”-will get automatically drummed out of the military, not just one who is sexually active. Also, a heterosexual soldier who talks about his sex life isn’t going to be drummed out of the military, at least not for this reason.
“Also, a heterosexual soldier who talks about his sex life isn’t going to be drummed out of the military, at least not for this reason.”
Unless he’s banging his superior’s wife, probably not.
duh:
Only 63% of democrats voted for the 1964 act. 80% of republicans did. Is that being on “the side of history”?
Duh by name, duh by nature.
we had a saying in the military: We protect the US Constition, we don’t practice it
“we had a saying in the military We protect the US Constitution, we don’t practice it.”
Wow, imagine the “he hates the military!” cries from conservatives if a liberal (even one who had been in the military him/herself) had characterized the armed forces with such a “saying.” I guess the IOKIYAAC (It’s Okay If You Are A Conservative) syndrome is alive and well.
It’s Ok Dan, because it comes from ACTUAL SERVICE MEMBERS, people serving IN the armed forces!
I can introduce you to one or two if you like, then you can tell your liberal friends you actually KNOW someone in the military. It will give you a lot of street cred…..
Duhhhhhhhhhh was in the armed forces?
Wow. They really have lowered their standards.
“It’s Ok Dan, because it comes from ACTUAL SERVICE MEMBERS, people serving IN the armed forces!”
Still sounds cynical and downright contemptuous to me, and the fact that it (supposedly) comes from “actual service members” doesn’t change that impression in the slightest. Again, if a prominent liberal had characterized the military with those words, he’d be figuratively tarred and feathered by the usual suspects (talk radio, the Investors Business Daily, Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Boston Herald, the Fox “News” Channel, conservative blogs) as being hostile to the military.