« Ran, Tonks Ran | Main | Here We Go... »

June 28, 2005
Bush to Wusses: Sign Up Now! Free Toaster!

So basically, Bush's speech tonight was a sad plea for more (temporarily) warm bodies to send into combat.

Nicely done.

"Our enemies are brutal. But they're no match for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."

Comments

Previous Comments

Free college money seem to work for a lot of people, that is until they had to actually fight a war.

So what are you saying, Spurrier? That they want education and are cowards?"

They want something for nothing. For years the gov't has pushed a free education if people are willing to serve in the military. Guess which people are getting out when their time is up? Those that wanted to give some time, as long as they could not get hurt, and get some tax payer dollar. They are not cowards but we have a whole generation they may have joined for the wrong reasons. Isn't national service enough?

Your line of reasoning is riddled with unfounded assumptions, spurrier. Do you have any data to back up that those who accepted the government's offer of money for education are leaving the armed forces in higher numbers than those who didn't?

Even if that is true, enlisting in the military, accepting what is offered, fulfilling your commitment, and then leaving is in no way wrong or morally questionable. They have fulfilled their obligation, and are free to do what they please.

In the end, I'm not sure what you're advocating. Should the gov't simply not provide any incentive for military service? Reinstate the draft?

I think in Spurrier we have a pretty good example of the leftwing cheap-shot artist. Doesn't like the military so he defames them as cowardly and getting something for nothing. Want to bet he's balding but sports a stringy ponytail? I see him rolling fat ones while grooving on Dylan and Janis. Somebody drive a stake into the heart of the Sixties, please.

The people in the military are not all cowardly, but there are many who go solely more for the college monies, which is sad. Higher education should not solely be offered through military incentives, and it shouldn't be the reason people go off to die for arrogant superego leader idiots.

If you support the war, it is your right to go, and fight it. And if you don't support the means the country's taken, going to war for fixed reasons, then it's your right to protest just as much.

I do believe that if the same politicians who've found it extremely easy to push for war so gung ho, mainly, because they deem themselves too far above the average citizen as a front-line commando instead opting for buffered leader on capital hills, there wouldn't have been all the here here's we've heard so far. If their childrend were the first to be drafted, no chickenhawks, drafted, to fight along in front of the citizens they say they represent into the war against their will, maybe even came back a year later missing a few limbs, the sentiment for Support the War would not exist.

So, Anthony, I say, yes, reinstate the draft for people who've made the decision to support the war, started with the Full Metal Jerk-offs in the senate. None of that general barking from a comfy desert tent stuff either; I'm talking up front with Rumsfeld lack of armor, against insurgents.

Everyone else gets their views respected, and stays home to work on public policy issues.

No I am actually in the military and hate seeing those who like to whine about joining just for the college money. I don't want a draft becuase then we would get a larger amount of people who don't want to fight. But if it ever comes to having a conscripted military again, I hope the only deferment comes from those truly not physically quallified. None of this I have to go to college bullshit that we saw in the last major war with conscription. When that happens all we have is the poor fighting the wars and the people truly not supporting the war effort.
Jer makes some good points, people in positions of authority might want to make some sacrifices before they run for office. People like John McCain make great role models and those like Clinton do not.
Banjo is a moron who like to read and hear his own message.

Interesting that you pick out Clinton, who indeed did avoid military service, but seemed pretty sensitive to sending the military into battle (I might argue too sensitive in the case of Rwanda), but make no mention of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Perle, et al., who all avoided (significant) military service, and have started our most significant war in 30 years.

If/when there is another draft, I'm sure there will not be a college deferment. It's now pretty universally regarded as unfair.

My entire point was to draft those, and the children of those who really, really, really support Bush in all his promises of a war-lorn utopia. Like working to earn the value of a buck, go to war to learn the value of slaughtering, and risking being slaughtered by misguided religious idiots in desert parts of the planet. These people aren't "evil", they're not mentally well, because they continue to be fed some delusional God idea they'll be rewarded for in spades after death. Not everyone follows the brainwash in those parts of the world either. These are the people to reach, and empower.

It's not all just some fun video game like the army makes it seem. If the people on the Hill are to be true supposed leaders, great, let them do their time by having to draft in themselves, and their progeny in the grunt mess halls, on the scalding dirt plain frontlines against suicide head-cases, so they feel the umpphh of their choices first hand, not just idealistically through some sham advertisement scheme.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, buying up thirty different "Support the Troops" magnets, a big box of fireworks, and ten plastic flags is nice, but why not really fork over the people valuables in your family for the effort, and leave those who don't support the effort, who support the troops by not sending them off to die for Messianic meatheads, to figure out the best least-military resolve to the ensuing disaster.

It's also time to survey the people in the military, and ask them their political views. Those who're servicing on bases, camping in the military base, who call themselves staunch Bush supporters, have them replace infantry men who're in Iraq against their political leanings. Anti-war troops can serve on the base back home as conscientious objectors.

While they're at it, they can allow for reasons of respect, allow gays to serve openly proud of their sexual identity. I'm sure there'd be more troops on the fields if army policy were more liberalized, more tolerant of liberal views, allowing people to express them as such.

And, yes, anyone who's served, and realizes they don't support the leader's vision, also has the right to protest him, and the war. In fact, there are veterans who've served, and don't support it:

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

Another man not mentioned, who served with valor in Vietnam was John Kerry. Like McCain, his contributions were refuted for same sham political hack reasons by the now many pro-war egomaniac chickenhawks on the hill.

If you want me to bash the republican paty with equal fervor, I guess I will, but you obviously get the point. Don't read too much into it.
The Persian gulf War was fairly significant and that was also within the last thirty years.
As for being sensitive I would say that is a bunch of shit. Look at Somalia. Clinton sent the military in with out the proper support and many were killed. As we see today, the military task changes and we need more support. But this time genuine effort is being made. We may not have had the up-armored vehicles then but we have them now.

I know it's cruel, but I'm going to quote "Jer" exactly: "My entire point was to draft those, and the children of those who really, really, really support Bush in all his promises of a war-lorn utopia. Like working to earn the value of a buck, go to war to learn the value of slaughtering, and risking being slaughtered by misguided religious idiots in desert parts of the planet."

Jer is mistaking what a draft is. It sweeps up everyone, regardless of what they may think about the justice, etc., about whatever challenge is facing a country. (I gather he thinks no challenge is worthy of response. This doormat theory is what all that dope smoking and harder brain-softening drugs did to the Sixties generation.) Maybe what he means is the people who are patriotic ought to volunteer for the military. This is what happens now, Jer. Remove your head from your ass and learn what's going on. You'll find the air fresher, among other bonus points. As for gays in the military, the military figured out long ago they have a negative effect. If it were not the case, the doors would have been flung open to the a long time ago and the costly educational incentives he finds so objectionable would not have been necessary.

Gays in the military brings up many problems that would have to be solved, most importantly the logistical issues. If you don't know what they would be you really haven't thought about the issue too much. I don't think the average tax payer would want to foot that bill to pay to fix these issues. And before you go and say what is he talking about just think privacy.

Lots of massive generalizations flying around in here...

The idea that it is only patriots who enlist is silly. Jer's point -- and I'm not defending all of them, as I believe a lot of what he's saying is purposely over the top -- is that there are a lot of so-called chickenhawks running around who go on and on about supporting the war and supporting the troops, but do everything they can to avoid service themselves.

As for the gays argument, it's terrible. As far as I know, fraternization is against the rules in the military for anyone. The military is not a sexual organization. The only reason gays "cause problems" is because people are bigots and the leadership can't control them. The exact same arguments were used to keep blacks out of the military before the Civil War. It's really serious bullshit.

Newsflash - the world is filled with gay people. You stand next to them in the public bathrooms every single day. They're not trying to fuck you. Get over yourself. It's nothing more than bigotry, plain and simple.

I'm still speaking of a draft; just not the kind that indiscriminately forces people against their views. Think of it as a fair draft for those who laud the war means as all-effective, yet they aren't willing to put themselves on the front lines. Drafts don't have to be all-inclusive, only inclusive of those who say war is the only way, yet aren't big enough to put their ass where their mouth is. Eeer, maybe that is the problem. That they do nothing but talk out of their ass, expecting others do the work. Sometimes bullshitters need to be enouraged to grow up, and follow through on their say.

Banjo, following your inane line of reasoning, means having to push one's head so far up the rectal cavity, that one repeatedly inverts at least fifteen times over. But, I'll leave to you to your way of life. It must work well for you being your own enema.

"The military is not a sexual organization."

And the military wants to keep it that way. Gays constitute something under three per cent of the population. A robust military can be easily achieved without them.

Evidently, assholes are a much higher portion of the population.

I really shouldn't have to point out that discrimination is not about what can be "achieved without" oppressed minorities, it's about equal rights.

Yes there are many gay people in the world but I don't want to stand in a gang shower with one. Just like women might not want to be in a showerwith men.
Apperntly there are many asshole bloggers out there too.

Discrimination has a bad reputation as a word, but discriminate is what we do when we choose steak over chicken, cotton over polyester and Chrysler over Jugo, and judge marriage to be something between men and women. It simply means choice. The military chooses not to have people who are gay. If they keep their sexual preference to themselves -- I know how difficult that is after gay liberation gave people permission to talk about their sexual practices endlessly and expect others to approve and even sanctify them -- they can serve. If not, not.

The military has people that are gay. It just doesn't allow them to speak openly of it. It doesn't harm anyone to have gay Americans serve who are proud to serve their country. It's still troops on the fields who serve effectively defending American values.

As for showering with fellow soldiers, sex in the showers isn't proper military procedure, no matter who's doing it. Like anyone else who goofs off on base, on anything, not just things sexual, there is retribution. I have many female friends, and I know to keep my dick in my pants, because imposing myself on them is rape. If I'm at work, and feel asking one of them out, great, I do so. But we don't screw on the job, because it's unprofessional. Having an adult mind about it, means being able to control yourself, and save the fooling around for when there's personal free time.

So, I see no problems with having a more equal tolerant military. It's not a sexual organization, but it is a sexually biased organization.

What a load of crap (not you, Jer). Discrimination is not choice. Discrimination is the absence of choice. What you are defining with those examples, Banjo, is a different meaning of the word 'discrimination.' Just because it's the same word doesn't mean it's the same thing. Sheesh. Context, anyone?

The military is a public institution. As a "free" nation, our public institutions are to be open to ALL citizens, not just all citizens that you don't find icky.

I don't give a shit if you approve of or sanctify homosexuality. The only thing I expect is for you to respect people's privacy and mind your own damn business.

Spurrier, if you have been or are in the military, or have ever taken a "gang shower" in non-military situations for that matter, you've very likely taken one with gay men. The rules in the military are against all forms of fraternization. (Interesting that the root of that word is Latin for "brother," but I digress..) If something happened in the shower, if someone assaulted you, action should be taken. The rules are the same for everyone. It is unjust, though, to deny certain people access based on the irrational fears and bigotry of others, even if those others are the majority.

Again, ultimately all that you are advocating is bigotry. It's not complicated. Either you stand for treating all people equally under the law, or you don't.

I did not say have sex in the showers. Women do not want to shower with their coworkers, why? Probobly for similar reasons that I would not want to shower with gay men. Privacy.
I don't know if ou people understand when I say gang shower. What I mean is a shower room with many showerheads. So putting it in quotes serves no purpose.
As for gay men or women serving in the military, yes there are those who serve quietly. They are allowed to serve as long as they take not gay actions. They can talk about it all they want. Just saying that you are gay is not enough reason to kick them out. They would have to have been caught in a comprimising position.
Anthony just becuase you don't like my argument does not mean you need to try and discredit me by implying that I have not been in the military. ("Spurrier, if you have been or are in the military")
My argument was, would the public pay to allow more privacy in the military to allow gay men and women to serve? I don't think they would. How do you build a cohesive unit when the men or women don't live together in close confines? All services start out with these very open training situations.

"I don't give a shit if you approve of or sanctify homosexuality. The only thing I expect is for you to respect people's privacy and mind your own damn business."

Privacy is why gays in the military is an issue in the first place. Gays are both clannish and promiscuous. Allowing them into the military and allowing them to give vent to what is the most defining thing about them -- their sexuality -- would raise social tensions and lower force effectiveness. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't been around gays very much. Personal privacy must take second place to the primary national interest of defending itself from external threat. And, of course, the national interest is everybody's business. Political correctness and the grievance industry have to be kept out of the military services. I see that "discrimination" is too loaded a word, even though someone with discriminating taste is considered to have exceptional standards, so let's just call it "choice." The nation chooses not to have gays in the military. When they out themselves, they are detached from the service. Think of it as merely an aspect of of national defense. If you're gay, I expect you won't like it as you don't like the prohibitions against homosexual marriage and other aspects of life in a hetrosexual society. But that's the way it is.

Spurrier - As far as I know, you are incorrect about the military's policy on homosexuality. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has been upheld by the courts 5 times since it's introduction in 1993. This means that soldiers who are not heterosexual are forbidden from discussing their sexuality or any homosexual relationships.

Uh, I didn't try to discredit you. I don't know you, so I don't know if you've served in the military. I was merely saying that it didn't matter whether you have or not. Further, how would it discredit you to imply that you haven't been in the military? Clearly I don't believe that only military personnel have credibility on this or any other issue.

Military units are currently composed of both men and women, who are housed separately. Do we not have "cohesive units" now? You arguments are filled with contradictions.

As for you, Banjo, clearly you are just a bigot. I don't even know where to begin with your hate-filled screed. Your massive generalizations are ridiculous, hateful, and sad. The only reason you think that gays' sexuality is what is most defining about them is because that's how YOU define them. If you could get over your own insecurities, you may find that gay people are people more than they are gay just as you are, marginally, a person more than you are your sexuality, whatever that may be. The presence of gays would "raise social tensions and lower force effectiveness" only insofar as the other soldiers are insecure, pathetic assheads. Our military should teach these people some respect and to be adults, not reinforce their bigotry.

You can't possibly be serious about using alternate definitions for the word "discriminate" to justify your position. Ridiculous.

I don't believe that America should be a "heterosexual society" - as dictated by the government - anymore than I believe it should be a Christian society, or a White society, or a Male society. The America that I believe in is a FREE society, for one and all. Read the Constitution (pay particular attention to the 14th Amendment).

The hate and intolerance that you display frankly sickens me, and I would prefer it if you would stop reading my site. I have no allusions that I can disabuse you of your prejudices. Please go away.

You have quite a talent for abuse, Anthony. But bluster doesn't conceal the lack of content in your argument. Um, are you gay by any chance? I think it's relevant.

It's entirely irrelevant, actually. Are you fat? Freckled? Knobby kneed? Because if so, I shall be forced to consider your arguments in a different light.

As usual, thou and thine ilk doth protest too much. By my reading, there is plenty of content in my response and little abuse, only responses to your original abuse ("Gays are both clannish and promiscuous.", et al.). Your choice not to respond to a whit of that content only strengthens my assertions.

I will repeat, though, that I have no intention of trying to change your mind. I can only hope that one day you have a change of heart and realize that prejudice is a terribly ugly thing in any form and has no place in a just society. Try compassion, it's much more interesting than fear.

Damn Banjo you're an idiot, a bigot. thats like an asshat-trick!

"Military units are currently composed of both men and women, who are housed separately. Do we not have "cohesive units" now? You arguments are filled with contradictions."
Where do we house those that are gay? is this not a relevant question? I do not want to life with a person that may be attracted to me, unless I am also attracted to that person. It is a privacy issue. We start out basic training with 60 others and worrying about your privacy is the very last thing you want to do.
The Army trains their men and women together and look what problems they have had. The Marines train their person seperatly and have less of the fraternazation issues. So Where do we house those members of the military that are gay? And yes it does matter.
We do have cohesive units now, especially those units that are combat units, oh and there are no women in those units and gay men are not allowed... is there a coorelation?

Problems that have occurred in the Army are due to a lack of discipline and poor leadership. If soldiers do their jobs and follow the rules, sexuality is a non-issue. If soldiers do not do their jobs or break the rules, they should be punished. The standards should be applied equally to all.

Again, sex is not supposed to be a part of the military. If discipline and the chain of command are maintained and everyone does their job, women and gays are not a problem. The problems only arise because of people's prejudices, bigotry and illegal behavior. My point is that our public institutions have a responsibility not to conform to those prejudices or make concessions for them, but to fight them.

Combat units are cohesive because they care about each other's lives and their lives depend on working together, not because they're all straight men. Your logic here is really bad. Correlation does not imply causation.

Is it really that threatening to you? Why? What are you afraid of? I, personally, am of the opinion that those who make the most noise about homosexuality are often those who are least comfortable and secure with their own sexuality. Why else would you care?

Inasmuch as you refuse to be forthcoming, I'm going to take a wild stab and guess you're gay. I am heterosexual. This puts us in two very different places. There is a world of difference between sexual orientation and whether one is freckled or has an excess or flesh hung on the skeletal frame. As I said earlier, sexuality is always an issue -- particularly with gays. Apart from fashion, do they talk about anything else than boyfriends and getting laid and the quality of the blowjob? I know, I know -- I'm a bigot by your standards for bringing this up, but that doesn't mean it's any less true. You seem to expect the military to somehow iron out the differences between gays and straights by issuing orders to ignore them. This is asking rather more than the military can deliver, I'm afraid. Try to deal with the real world, not some idealized concept you have of what it ought to be. Now then, I'm ready for the next round of abuse. Lay some more thy and thine on me.

Sorry, Banjo, but I'm not going to engage in this pretend debate with you any longer. You are a sad, sick person, and my view of humanity has been slightly lowered by your effluvium. I would prefer it if you would go away and stop reminding me of all the hateful, fearful people in your "real world." I will return to my idealized concept where people know the meaning of charity, compassion, and good will and have given a moment's thought to anyone but themselves.

Fuck off.

I'll take another wild stab and guess you're unaccustomed to disagreement, which would account for the panicky reaction. "It's not true, it can't be true, it must . . .it must be hate!" Ah, life in the political correctness cocoon where dissent from its canons can only be attributed to hate, bigotry and really, really bad people.

I think Banjo is just one of those auto-text generators that direct mail marketers have been trying to perfect lately.

Starts with obsufacation (well it starts with bigotry, but thats ubiquitous), the wierd "discrimination isn't bad, i like chicken" argument.

Then the automaton prints "all gays do is talk fashion, blow jobs and what not" style comments (I think Banjo was trained on the Bravo Channel).

Following up with vacuous comments calling others comments vacuous (or full of bluster, in this case) regardless of conent (again in this case, the comment under attack was demonstrably full of relevent, cogent content. page up and check it)

Then, in what I'd thought would be the end point and after being called out for obvious bigotry and every other tactic failing it, Banjo starts calling people fags.

And it a weak, final retort (at least i hope it final) Banjo plays the "Political Correctness" card.

So, early analysis seems to show that in the attempt to create an auto-hate-text generator, the direct mail marketers have inadvertenly re-created a fag-hag called "Banjo" (beta?). I guess its back to the drawning board for em.

Obsufacation? What dat? I didn't call anyone a "fag." I asked a question to ascertain the possible rationale for a point of view. Still hasn't been answered, as you may notice. If a person writes at considerable length about sexual orientation, aren't we entitled to know what his is? If someone argued against eating meat it seems relevant to inquire if he is a vegetarian. I'll be interested to see how you spin this as more hate speech.

No, Banjo, you're not entitled to know. What you're missing is the entire basic concept of discrimination and rational debate. We do not judge ideas based on the orientation, skin color, eating habits, or any other inherent quality of their originator, but on the basis of the ideas themselves. It is the nature of logical discourse that the interlocutors' personal habits, races, etc. are entirely irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of their position. If these things are taken into account when evaluating an argument, it is called prejudice. The type of argument you're making has been rejected countless times by our legal system and the legal systems of nearly all modern societies. It is profoundly wrongheaded.

I would guess, based on the rest of the site that Anthony is not gay. Do a little research Banjo.

"The type of argument you're making has been rejected countless times by our legal system and the legal systems of nearly all modern societies."

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice the judge up there on the bench, though the baliff should been the tipoff I was in a courtroom. We were talking originally about gays in the military, though that seems a long time ago now. I don't think you're saying I need a law degree to have an opinion on the subject, but maybe you are. Funny, I thought this was a blog where opinions were exchanged in a robust manner, except when feelings are hurt and one side retreats into silence. Get lawyers and pompous jargon involved and it'll ruin the whole deal. As for judging ideas only on their merit, that sort of thing might work in Plato's Republic or some other realm of the ideal. But in the real world where Richard Nixon loses an election because he breaks out in sweat on his upper lip and JFK has great hair, it cuts only as much ice as people are willing to grant. Kerry, another great haircut, got turned down because enough people thought he was as phony as Teddy Kennedy is a rummy. Perception is reality in a democracy, although I suppose you'd blow it off as prejudice. Michael Jackson got off with the rules of evidence in full play, but I don't think many believe he's innocent. The military objects to gays in the ranks and has sound reasons for it -- to get back to the original point -- and the public goes along. The left, because it mistrusts the people and cannot win them over, prefers to impose its will by fiat.

The military does not have sound reasons for keeping fair rights from gays, other than homophobic assertions. The fact it doesn't provide truly fair treatment for all American peoples is evidence of it as an institution which needs much discipline, and better education on issues of tolerance, tolerance of something other than just its classic slew bigotry. Banjo, the right, because of its ridiculous arrogance, loses support. Yet still it attempts maintaining it not only through fiat, but propagandist stage acts as well, another reason people mistrust rightists. And yes, Nixon lost to Kennedy on the television debates, because Nixon had the blessings of a lying bald ugly crook.

Jer,the military and the people of the United States do have valid arguments of why Gays are not allowed to serve openly n the military. In an earlier post someone said that you can't even mention being gay. That is not true. Homosexual conduct is what is relyed on to remove someone from the military. So many people think that "Don't ask, Don't tell" was such a great idea. The homosexual conduct policy of the military does not allow homosexual conduct and simply stating that you are gay does not automatically remove you from service. "Don't ask, Don't tell has actually removed more people from military service than with out the policy. If you look at the number, and sorry Anthony I don't have them infront of me, they show that in the first two years more gay people were discharged from the militray for being gay than in the five previous years before the policy was put into effect. Intent and effect were definitly not in unison here.
Unit cohesion is a good argument that stands up to criticism. It had been used in the past but for reasons that did not and should not have been acceptable. i.e. segregation of races in the military. Unit cohesion is greatly affected when sexual relations are formed within a unit. Some might say for the better when dealing with a healthy relationship, (the couple gets along) but when the relationship goes sour all bets are off. This argument appliies to both the Women in Combat units and gay men or women serving in the military.
As I stated earlier personal privacy should also be a concern, not only for those that are straight but those that are gay. No one has given me any good way to solve that problem nor has anyone attempted to. Unless calling me names for putting forth this idea is a lame attepmt.

Spurrier, your arguments, while I disagree with them, are at least based on a reasoned analysis. Banjo, on the other hand, has resorted to caricatures and absurd stereotypes, stating flatly that all homosexuals behave, think, and talk in the same way, among other slurs, and that is why he will receive no more attention from me. If he wants to believe that this means he has made me "panic" or "retreat into silence" I honestly don't care. He is not welcome here. Call it my own bigotry against blinding ignorance.

To your argument, though, I agree with Jer that the unit cohesion argument is archaic and a relic of previous bigotry. It has never been shown to any satisfaction that it is true, it has been carried down through the years from a military that was once all male, all white, and all straight. I don't buy the argument, since the alternative has never been tried. It is simply assumed that it would be impossible to maintain discipline, and I think that's a pretty sad statement on the confidence the military has in its own leadership. In a combat situation, I find the whole thing beyond absurd, as if someone is going to risk the lives of their unit over some kind of lovers' quarrel. Again, it must be pointed out that if discipline is maintained, there would be no such relationships to begin with.

Banjo, I guess you're saying that just because our legal system has, time and again, determined that it is unjust to judge people by who they are and not what they do, you needn't hold yourself to such a high standard. Fair enough. You are free to be a bigot if you choose. Enjoy.

Indeed, it would be closer to an ideal world if people would judge arguments on their merits and not on the basis of who is doing the arguing. For you to claim that simply because people sometimes do not behave this way we should not strive for such a world is simply asinine. It pains me to point out that individuals and societies only progress if they desire progress. If you wish to remain a reactionary, ill-informed, bigoted man, that is - again - your choice. The rest of us would appreciate it, though, if you would not go around claiming that no one else should be allowed to use their brains' higher functions either.

Strive to do better? Yes, who could be against that? Smile more, too. Bigot is a word thrown around pretty frequently here. I think it's used in place of "I disagree with what you say." It is a pretty familiar example by now of using shame to coerce agreement, but it doesn't work as well as it used to. Anthony up there appears to be an authority on military lines of command and discipline within the ranks, and doesn't appear to think unit cohesion is important in the modern era. "Archaic," our warrior-scholar calls it. Well, it's all-important in combat. Study after study done by the military and social scientists has shown soldiers commit acts of unbelievable heroism and selflessness not because of flag or country, mom or apple pie but because they are afraid of showing cowardice or letting down the other people he is fighting alongside. If you don't think there is a lot of animus toward homosexuals in our society, you're just not paying attention. Inserting a couple into a combat unit is a prescription for strife and disunity. The real world, people, that's what we're talking about, not some idealized conception of what it ought to be. Remember "Imagine" by John Lennon? It is much beloved by the left, evoking as it does a world in which there are no nations, no religion no possessions. When Lennon wrote it he was a fabulously wealthy heroin addict padding naked around his pad at the Dakotas. John would have favored gays in the military. It would have appealed to his anarchical side. So, Anthony, are you gay? Really, we need some context here.

Clearly wrong on nearly every point, Banjo.

Bigot has been used by Anthony and others to describe the denial of rights to a certain class of people based on nothing more than their membership in that class. They are restricted based on who they are, not what they've done. Further, you slander gays in nearly every post with absurd generalizations, which is, again, a form of bigotry.

Anthony did not say that unit cohesion is archaic, he said that the idea that unit cohesion would be reduced by the presence of women and/or gays is archaic. Read it again.

There is most certainly animosity towards gays in our society, just as there is animosity towards many minority groups. You seem to be suggesting we simply accept this as a fact of life that cannot be changed, a very fatalistic and sad idea.

Once again, not even going into the profound lack of attention to detail and powers of perception your questions about Anthony's sexuality display, what possible difference could it make?

You can continue to act like you are being dismissed and deemed a bigot simply because people disagree with you, but it's all here on this page for anyone to see that it is not the case. You never engage the substance of any of the arguments offered, you just complain of persecution and throw around ridiculous, irrelevant "examples." It's really quite amusing, actually.

Jeebus Banjo, you dont quit. you just repeat the same crap over an over. You are using the exact same line of reasoning used historically to talk about blacks in the military, exactly, as a threat to cohesion. As an aside, Anthony didn't say the cohesion wasn't important, just that your malformed idea as to what constitutes cohesion is flawed. Everything you've writen is flawed (and not in the sans spell checker sense, dick) to such an extent that you seem like a construct designed to flame.

And your scumbag, drumbeat, "are you gay" line is just old. If you can't tell, the dude isn't dropping to your pathetic level. Because, no, you aren't entitled to know. You use a an analogy to "vegitarianism" that is a direct analogy similiar to the kobby knees comment you lamely tried to discredit.

I'm a veteran, and not a bigot. In the infantry and as a squad leader, i had gay members in my unit with no loss of cohesion. In fact the only serious issues with cohesiveness came from poorly educated bigots.

Exactly, rykyard. It's really a terrible argument he's making. "I can't deal with having gay people around me, therefore they should not be allowed to be around me." I seem to recall people using similar logic during the civil rights struggles. "Why, we wouldn't have a problem down here if them coloreds would just learn to mind their place..."

Blame the oppressed for their own oppression. It's really a very nice way to avoid self-examination.

"They are restricted based on who they are, not what they've done."

No, they are restricted based what they do, i.e., homosexual behavior. I've made my point about "bigotry," so, like Anthony, I'll withdraw into a dignified silence on that subject. But feel free to indulge yourself further, and don't spare me any references to scumbags and similar vituperation if you find it helpful. It dresses up just about any argument. In passing: Black people find it deeply offensive for gay rights to be considered equivalent to their struggle for civil rights. If you don't think so, ask a black person -- if you know one. Now let's turn to the question of gay marriage. Legislatures and referenda continually oppose it by overwhelming margins. This seems to qualify as "denial of rights to a certain class of people based on nothing more than their membership in that class," as someone wrote above. Left wing judges overturn these mandates when they can, which is the biggest reason for all the interest in who Bush appoints to the high court. This deeply-held feeling about male-female marriage is also why the Democrat party is doomed to permanent minority status unless it sheds the gay agenda, an element of which is gays in the military. But we're drifting far afield here. Gay and proud -- is that you, Anthony? I'm getting a little restless with this and seriously thinking of pushing on, so this might be the last chance. Come clean!

blah blah blah. You really love to group people together, don't you, Banjo? Liberals think this, blacks think this, gays think this. It's all really pathetic.

The only actual point you make is simply wrong. Gays are restricted not for homosexual behavior, but for the mere fact of their homosexuality. A gay man who has never engaged in gay sex in his life would be excluded as well as someone who has had such relations. If they or anyone else engage in prohibited behavior while on duty - and again, I'll remind you that this includes ALL sexual activity by anyone - they should be disciplined like anyone else.

You have made no point about bigotry. You have shown yourself to be a bigot in many ways by lumping massive populations together under simple-minded generalizations, but your "point" exists only in your own mind.

I personally agree that the denial of marriage rights to gays is patently unjust. I naturally do not agree with your tired "activist judges" canard. It's a phrase thrown around by many on your side only when convenient, as most such labels are. It's an empty talking point, and its use demonstrates a lack of independent thought.

The voters have the right to enact laws restricting marriage to straight people, but the courts also have a responsibility to uphold the constitution, which trumps all other laws. This whole "activist judges" thing shows a deep misunderstanding of the entire idea of checks and balances. Many on the right seem to want the judicial branch to be subservient to the other two (as long as they control the other two, anyway). The branches are equal. This system has worked pretty well for a long time. We have moved, gradually, from a less just to a more just society.

The position that some should be denied rights that others enjoy raises its ugly head every now and then, always with another group, always the same arguments. It's a shame we have to continue to learn the same lessons over and over again, but it's heartening that eventually we do seem to come around to the idea that equality is only equality when it's equality for all.

We're going there, Banjo, with or without you.

Oh golly! My last chance? Well, sheeee-eet, let me try to think of an appropriate response... Quick!

Loser.

Off in search of higher caliber adversaries. Adieu.

Good riddance.

"We're going there, Banjo, with or without you."

Without.

Leave the man to his flat earth, and witch doctor medicines. Banjo, in the cave that is your head, to you, it's obviously enough having ego heady assertions act as a cure all. In the world outside your zooed trailor park this form of reasoning doesn't fly. Flapping your lips with your finger, and speaking from your repressed memories of having been made to watch one too many Cheech & Chong episodes doesn't constitute good argumentation.

However, since you like being thought of as the butt-pimple of Nathan Bedford Forrest, then all I have to say to klan residue like yourself is, "Long Live the UNION". And may a more equal union amongst ALL peoples, except regressive bigots, prosper.