It would be a huge improvement if McCain would just step in the 20th century!

I would like to see the wording of this poll and who was asked. NBC isn't exactly an organization that can be trusted in revealing the truth.

Donna, the poll was jointly conducted by NBC and the WSJ - the latter is hardly a liberal source.

If you really do care about the actually wording of the poll, though, WSJ plans to publish more information at 6:30 EST per the link below - check it out and let us know what you find out.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/17/wsjnbc-poll-support-grows-for-gays-in-military/

Heck,

Who cares what their sexuality is, we should go back and have a mandatory draft of all 18 year old people after the graduate high school. Have them serve 2 years, then serve 6 years in the reserves. Might teach a few some discipline, might be a way for some to get out of a bad situation, and it might cause a lot of HS dropouts though.

Donna sounds just like John McCain. LOL! First he said he would defer to the judgment of the military leaders. Then when they came forward and said DADT should be repealed, he insisted there should be a study done among the military. Now that such a study has been conducted that shows broad support for repealing DADT, he wants investigations into how the study was conducted. Face it, these bigots will never be satisfied unless they're told what they want to be told.

"IT'S NOT THE POLICY! IT'S NOT THE POLICY! IT'S NOT THE POLICY!" John McCain, possibly immediately before yelling "GET OFF MY LAWN!".

In any event, there were gays and lesbians in the military when I served. So what? There always has been, there always will be. It's just another divisive piece of crap the right throws in everybody's face. Next time one of these "patriots" tells you how un-American it would be to allow gays in the military, ask them about a guy that served in the Revolution that is regarded as perhaps the person that saved the whole movement. This guy was apparently forced out of his own country's military due to the suspicion that he might be a homosexual, yet he brought up the morale of those soldiers long ago and made them into a cohesive military force, not to mention his vast improvement of sanitation in camps. Who was this terrible person? Baron von Steuben; there is no proof that he was homosexual, but enough existed at that time to force him to leave the Prussian army - he likely would suffer the same fate in today's American military. Wouldn't that be great?

It's about Damn time people started coming around. Whether your straight or Gay serving in the armed forces is an honor and a privilege. Gay's love this county just as much as the rest of us. And being gay or Lesbian is not a choice of lifestyles you are born with that sexual preference. So what if the Government has to make some changes to sleeping and bathroom facilities. Women have been serving along side troops for sometime now and it seems to be working out fine. I have always believed that women should have the right to serve and even in battle if they want, It's there right. Does anyone want to see pictures of women shot on the battle field No more that they want to see there sons there. Most people are thinking of watching what I call flaming Gay's in the Military, Well I don't believe that we will be seeing any of that, Boot camp will address that issue. If you are a proud American then you have the right to serve and die for your country.

It should be remembered that the military is not just "the military." While gays serving in the military shouldn't be any kind of issue in most settings, some of those proposing a whole-scale entrance of open gay admission to the military should think about spending a few months at sea in a submarine. The close quarters and near-intimate surroundings for prolonged periods will raise issues for those men who take offense to being sexually desirableto other men in this circumstance. The inevitableconsequence will be a rapid drop in re-enlistment by those few men capable and willing to serve in this stressful and elite branch of the military. This feeling is not for reasons of being politically incorrect--they are for the feelings that create fundamental discomfort. For the next poll on this matter, no matter who conducts it, the question should be asked OF ACTIVE DUTY SUBMARINERS how they would feel at sea with gays sleeping above them, below them, next to them, etc., etc. The answer would likely be unanimous.

what makes you think sleeping next to a straight guy is anything to write home about. Contrary to popular belief, gay men don't want to have sex with every straight man out there, we are quite capable of having non-sexual relationships. Do you want to have sex with every woman you meet? Gays are already on those submarines, so where is the change, except that the gay service men and women can devote 100% of themselves to the job instead of reserving some of their effort to hide who they are. this whole argument of living conditions is bullsh!t.

Just because you are straight does not mean that you are attractive.

Possibly not, Nathan, but I am. :)

Perhaps workingdoc is worried. Maybe women don't pay any attention to him and he is afraid that he will be a few fathoms down, bunking next to a guy, and that guy won't pay any attention to him, either. Is it possible that doc is worried about total rejection?

Sorry, doc, but I knew gays when I was in the service and while I was merely a Water Walker in the USAF and did not serve under the sea with Ariel and all them critters, the last thing I was worried about was being eyed or attacked by a gay airman. Geez.

For working Doc; in the words of an old Master Chief I worked for once, you are as full of crap as a forty pound Robin. I served in the Navy for thirty years, and spent a great deal of that time aboard many aircraft carriers operating all over the world with a considerable bit of that time off the coast of Vietnam. I have been aboard a sub (as a guest) and the berthing arraingements are not that much different that aboard the old WWII era carriers I sailed on. Sailors today don't give a damn who you associate with when you are on the beach, and aboard ship, it's all about the job. If you do your job and don't make waves, no problem. If youdo make waves, you won't be around any longer than would a drunk or a druggie would be if found out. If you do your job and keep your mouth shut (no pun intended) there will be no problems. That does sound a little like DADT, but the official policy is unnecessary and unjustly punitive.

Suggesting that the submariner is someone exceptional - and therefore should somehow be protected from close contact with gays - is just another way of falling into the old attitude toward homosexuality. If men in submarines (or in aircraft, or Humvees) have a fear of being bunked with (or sitting close to, or standing close to) a gay guy, then the problem is not with the gay guy, but rather the one who is "afraid" of the contact. Gays have been around just as long as the rest of the sexually active population of the world. Forcing gays to "play straight" is not only stupid, but counter-productive. And as to those men in the military being "uncomfortable" with other men who might find them "desirable", I say, get a life fellow. That game has been going on for longer than you have been alive, and will continue.

If I were in need of assistance in a life or death situation in Afghanistan or anywhere else, I would not stop and inquire of my rescuer as to his sexual proclivities.

Instead of gnashing our gums on such an irrelevant issue, why not spend some of that energy feeding the starving people of the world. Look around at the big American bellies, and then look around at the rest of the world's population. Where is the real issue?

What difference does it make? The military's survey of the troops showed that they don't care, and that the process of bringing gay people into the military would be relatively easy. The only holdouts now are right-culture warriors who don't like gays. It's past time that everyone ignored them.

I don't care. But it is funny that the article says a majority favors letting them serve, then cites a study saying the number in support is 50%. Since when is that a majority? Plurality, sure. Majority, no. It will be a majority soon enough. And the religious right will have to stuff it. But I guess in this day and age of ram it through politics, 50 percent is a majority, and mandate...

All of those polled are from San Francisco. I Know.

Update - Okay, that one's even better - English teachers everywhere stand and applaud! :)

Thanks JoAnne - somebody's got to keep them on their toes, and I'm tired of it always being me.

b dune

Beverly

Wonder how the conversation would have gone if McCains daughter would have wanted to enlist?

I really don't think it would matter; since his daughter was kicked from the 2008 campaign. Besides, his daughter supports DADT.

Bev,

And which way does McCain's wife go. Opposite of him, well she is the one with the money:)

Beverly, Meghan does not agree with DADT - she is against it. Perhaps you are thinking of Cindy, his wife, who NOW agrees with grampa on DADT (she did not before, but maybe he threatened to make her listen to his speeches or something).

Get your facts correct Bev. Meghan does NOT support DADT. She is against the policy and is pro-gay rights.

http://blogout.justout.com/?p=21992

FYI - The military is not a democracy. Never has been and never will be. You can't run a battle by committee.

Hey Tammy,

What governs the MILITARY... The Government.. and the Government is Picked by the People... and the People are tired of the BS... Mc Geezer... who will say anything to NOT CHANGE his MIND....

Then Government is a Republic... Not a Democracy.... So ... Americans want Democracy... Well Change IT!!!

Republicans want to CHANGE the Constitution... Change it to a FULL FLEDGED DEMOCRACY...

LOOK OUT.... Be careful what you wish for....LOL LOL LOL LOL!!

Well said formermarine sgt! Hopefully some of these old conservatives will someday find religion and accept people for who they are.

RIGHT ON!!!

RIGHT ON!!!

RIGHT ON!!!

FormerMarineSgt.: Excellent and well thought out post.

Right on! I think the worst are the people who use their religion to justify their bigotry. It has always seemed to me that religion is about love and acceptance not hatred and bullying, this is probably why I don't get involved in any form of organized religion.

Great post FormerMarineSGT!!!

Funny how those first 3 groups sound so much like the same folks current Marines are killing in the Middle East???

That is why you are a FORMER Marine. You are not the MARINE that has to deal with this issue anymore. I could careless how it goes; I'm retired and I don't have to manuever around this soon to be problem.

When you integrate a civilian mentality (social experiments) within the military confines, you create disssention among the ranks. Soldiers will drive on regardless of the decision but you can't make them like it. Maybe when this generation X and Y become the leaders, then it will be a thing of the past. Right now you still have seasoned veterans that have spent their entire career with a policy in place and are going to be very resistant to change.

It is very easy in the civilian community to live and let live but in the military community things are different and you WILL NOT UNDERSTAND unless YOU LIVE IT.

IntheMiddle, TX - So just because some old people in the military are resistant to change we should continue to infringe on peoples rights because of their sexual orientation? That sounds like a great solution just ignore it so we don't ruffle anyones feathers. I'm really glad you decided to grace us with your post today, after all you offer such a wonderful solution.

In the middle, It's guys like you that impede what you consider a "social experiment" out of sheer stubbornness. I do think I first heard the term "Social Experiment" used by that great voice of tolerance, Rush Limbaugh,or perhaps it was Sean Hannity, or perhaps I heard it from that great humanitarian Glenn Beck, dean of the Glenn Beck School of Deep Thinking. I think you get your talking points from a least oneof these true believers. Do you think that just because one is no longer in the military, that one does not care what is going in? I have been retired for almost thirty years, my son recently retired and I have two grandsons and a granddaughter serving now (one of my grandsons is in Afghanistan). So don't try to speak for me about what is important in the military, I know.

Former Marine- Agree, for kids in uniform this is a non-issue.

They are more worried about training, equipment working as it is supposed to, clear rules of engagement, and getting thru the next Op.

They have grown up with a different perespective and more concerned with having someone who can do their job, not their race, religion, or sexual preference.

I shake my head reading some of the comments about "Civilian mindest" "Social experiments" blah, blah, blah...To the kids in uniform that is the noise of Old geezers still haven't adjusted that its not a catagory like "X or Y generation"..its about soldiers and marines born after 1985 (and some after 1992-yikes!) that are fighting to keep those knuckleheads safe to complain about things they don't like or want to make an effort to understand. Give the kids credit for being of the current generation...we are a generation behind.

God Bless each and every one of them and keep them safe.

Amen to that.

Willy T:

First of all you don't know me like that, so your attempt at belittling my statements are mute. I do not listen to Rush, Beck, Hannity, nor do I watch Fox or MSNBC. I know where they all are coming from and I do not need anyone to form or shape my opinion.

BTW: It is apparent you listen to all of them, so that little smerk is lame.

30yrs retired is a total different generation than even the one I belong to. Your opinion of something is definately going to be different than mine. If you would leave the granola and metamucil alone and take time to read, you would understand where I am coming from. No you just automatically ATTEMPT to bracket me as a radical republican homophobe that is too stupid to understand society.

I SAID that when these current youngsters become LEADERS, they will have a different outlook. Right now they are NOT the leaders and so the environment will always be hostile to these type of social intrusions.

Did anyone watch "Blip My Dad Says" last week. Actually dealt with this. I thought it was humorous, but in the end, one old guy accepted people for who they are, while another didn't.

I guess everyone needs to learn on their own.

InTheMiddle, you are right, I don't know you, but from the tone of your comment, it's not difficult to figure out where you are coming from. Resistance to change is always hard to overcome and long held prejudices are hard to let go of. Enough of that. By the way, if you are going to use big words, please use them the way Webster intended. Whe you stated that my "attempt to belittle your statement was "mute", I believe you meant "moot".

It appears that you might be one of the "old Geezers" Ltc-Joe is referring to. And yet I am so much older, how can that be? It's not age, it's training, background and what you were taught as a young buck that shapes ones personality and outlook in late life. Mine was to look for the good in people, and not to be afraid of others.

In the end, when you are hunkered down under heavy gunfire and you have to rely on those around you, are you really going to care what sexuality they have?

Well, IntheMiddle, I don't know whether or not you are "too stupid to understand society" but I can state unequivocally that you didn't do very well in spelling.

"InTheMiddle", your post is very informative, although not necessarily in a good way. But you should read my post at 1.6 and perhaps learn something. Social experiment my butt - yeah, this gay stuff is all new and we need to experiment to see what to do about it! This kind of attitude is what I think the former sergeant was addressing, although I'm not sure which niche you fall into.

Can you name all the militaries in our modern world that do not allow gays in the military? I can give you one, and that military is the People's Republic of China. OK, but what about our European allies? OK, perhaps Greece (no funny comments on that one, OK?). Odd that we are in the minority here, isn't it?

A moral wrong should not be a civil right!

Nice response LTC - USMC

And it seems like all the polls of active duty servicemen further support your comments.

I am surprise someone did not shoot that idiot from the Middle of Texas when he served.

Well, notright-1432242, morality is an opionion, not fact.

Hey, notright-1432242, what if my morals tell me that people that use monikers that contain both letters and numbers are the spawns of Satan and must be sacrificed? Would that make it OK?

You cannot impose your morals on others and you should not be expected to have to live under other peoples' morals.

Willy T:

I meant "MUTE", falling on deaf ears. I am very well educated.

Pirate:

F You! I frikken was shot azzhole. I bled a couple of times during my 24 yrs of which 17 spent in SF.

"mute" does not mean "falling on deaf ears". Educated must have a different meaning as well.

InTheMiddle, we are all aware you meant "moot" and not "mute" - your argument otherwise digs you into a deeper hole than you already were. By definition, a written sentence does not make a sound, although, in a metaphorical sense, many of yours come close; "mute" does not, in any sense, mean "falling on deaf ears", either, no matter where you may have been "well educated".

Sorry about your injury, but as you are probably aware, getting yourself shot does not make your opinion any more valuable than anyone else's. Were you fragged? I think that was Pirate's point...

It also does not make him any less of an A$$.

And you are right probably his own guys...

I meant what the hell I said M-U-T-E. Meaning that I'm not trying to hear that BS. Now, is that ebonic enuff for ya'

Evidently most of you are white and don't understand where I'm coming from.

BTW: I am very well educated and I mean what I say EXACTLY the way I say it. I think I know the definition of the two. This is a damn blog not 4th grade English class.

PS. Pirate ask your momma how much of an ass I am.

InTheMiddle, the more you post about this, the dumber you look - give it up. Ebonics? Is that your excuse for your poor command of English? Very well educated. Sure...here is the part of your post where you either use the wrong word or merely attempt to destroy the English language:

First of all you don't know me like that, so your attempt at belittling my statements are mute.

How can either an attempt to "belittle" or a statement be "mute"? No, this is not an English class, 4th grade or otherwise, but you stepped in it and refuse to admit you were wrong or, better yet, just leave it alone. I know you were wrong even it you won't admit it, so I am going to drop it now. Just keep in mind that refusing to admit you are ever wrong makes all your arguments meaningless, as people will tend to discount pretty much anything you have to say...

James:

As a former recruiter I can tell you that the military is losing no more troops now than was being lost when I was recruiting in the late 90's.

Soldiers get tossed daily for all sorts of things and yes they are highly qualified in their MOS's too. It is about good order and discipline. You see right now within the American society people are arguing about this issue. What do you think will happen in the military? How do you think a feminine male will be treated within the confines of an infantry unit?

Eye Opener: How foreign militaries lifted gay bans

25 nations lifted similar bans with relative success.

Excerpts:

Gen. Ray Odierno lent his voice to the debate on Monday by stating that he thinks everyone -- gay and straight -- should be allowed to serve in the military "as long as we are still able to fight our wars." His comments make him the first senior military leader leading in troops in battle to weigh in on a possible repeal.

"No consulted expert anywhere in the world concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay service caused an overall decline in the military," the study concluded. Researchers also found that the 25 nations implemented repeals of a gay ban within four months.

"Swift, decisive implementation signals the support of top leadership and confidence that the process will go smoothly, while a 'phased-in' implementation can create anxiety, confusion, and obstructionism," the study said. That conclusion runs counter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' stated preference for up to a year to implement a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."

And lest you think, "Who cares what other militaries do?", the study said the Pentagon has a long history of studying the experiences of other armed forces. The Pentagon's Foreign Military Studies Office has conducted research on personnel matters, healthy policy, housing, technology, counterterrorism operations and other matters, according to the report.

Some other interesting conclusions:

• The study also found that none of the 25 countries established separate living facilities for gay troops or established rules that treat them differently than heterosexuals.

• Lifting gay bans did not result in a mass “coming out.” Gay and lesbian troops serve at all levels of the armed forces of Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel in combat and non-combat roles as enlisted members and commanders.

• There were no instances of increased harassment of or by gay people as a result of lifting bans in any of the countries studied.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/eye_opener_how_foreign_militar.html

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/GaysinForeignMilitaries2010.pdf

InTheMiddle said:

How do you think a feminine male will be treated within the confines of an infantry unit?

Wow! You don't believe in stereotypes or anything like that do you, Sgt. HeMan? I have been around for over 50 years, and in that time I have known lots of people, of all sexual stripes. You know what? Many of the gays (are you ready for this?) were just as macho as I'm sure you are. You know what else? I have known straight guys that came across as pretty feminine. The same stereotyping for women is just as bogus. Most of the gays I knew in the military could not be picked out of a line-up, or whatever you would use, as being any different than anybody else. I know! Let's have the entrance exams followed by a panel that will decide whether or not somebody looks manly enough to be in the military.

Man, you need help. You must have been a helluva recruiter.

Let's face it. When it comes down to it it is all about religion. There is not much use arguing it. There are just always going to be religiosly minded people making a stink about the issue. They don't really care about military readiness. They would glaIdly sacrifice readiness rather than have their religious viewpoint take one more step toward obsolescence.

It is funny, too, how so many people don't understand gay people. It don't pretend to fully understand, but to talk as if all of them are feminine is somewhat humorous. If all gay guys were feminine, what would a gay encounter look like? Probably not too exciting. I'll bet you have very masculine and very feminine gay guys and when they get together it doesn't look a whole lot different than when heterosexual men and women get it on...

:) Very funny. Accurate, I am sure, but humorous to some degree...

Because they hate gays and black presidents, not my words just read their ignorant posts.

There is a fine line here for some of us. I voted for conservatives because I think if we leave the dems in charge we will ultimately end up bankrupt or worse. At the same time I don't agree with the social views of most conservatives, especially the tea party. Its too bad it has to be one or the other, I would love to see a candidate who is fiscally responsible and who supports gay rights... until then many are forced to decide what is more important at the time the economy or the many social issues plaguing the country.

Mark

give McCain a chance - if he reads the polls - you can expect him to change his stance any day now...

just like the tax cuts - I voted against them - but now I'm for them

I was against a fence on the border but now I am for it..

I was for amnesty but now against it....

just give him some time....you just have to catch him on the right day.

I have nothing against Gays in the military. I have nothing against a black president. Just NOT THIS black president. I love liberals who believe that all republicans are racists, while it's the Liberals who raise the race card. As the Wife of a active duty Marine (who happens to be black) I have nothing against Gays in the military. I don't believe a persons sexual preference should be considered either way. I don't think that if a military person is found out to be involved in homosexual activities, that they should be dismissed because of those activities. It's no one elses business what your sexual preference is. Obozo has had almost 2yrs to change things regarding gays in the military. He hasn't because he doesn't want it changed. NOW that it won't change because of the recent elections, he can blame it on the republicans. Just like NOW he's bringing up the DREAM act. He knows it won't be passed, and he can blame that on the republicans as well. He's spent 2yrs blaming everything on Bush. Now he has the next two years to blame it on the house.

Janine: Why the rant on Obama? We are talking about gay rights, not railing against "Obozo?" What kind of a nitwit are you anyway, with your third-grade name calling?

LeahMarie: In response to your post #11.2, where do you find evidence that Republicans or conservatives are better stewards of the economy than Democrats or liberals? Take a look at the economic record under George W. Bush (with both houses of Congress for 6 of the 8 years), or, under that paragon of economic conservatism, Ronald Reagan. What happened to the spending and the deficit during those years?

Take the same look at the Clinton years. Surpluses and balance budgets.

Yes, it is true that the deficit has ballooned under Pres. Obama, but he stepped off the recession cliff on Day 1 in office. In a recession, income to the government (taxes) goes down, while expenditures stay the same or go up (additional unemployment payments, for example). Also, the stimulus bill added to the deficit. So, you can criticize President Obama for his policies, but it is not really an even playing field. And, of course, the economy will improve over the next several quarters under the current president, so the full story is not yet written.

The point is, why ASSUME that Democrats, in general, aren't fiscally conservative?

Leah, you have your facts wrong. Go listen to the first clip from TRMS last night. Of the last five presidents, all three GOP drastically increased the national debt. The two Dems had a very small increase in the debt level. The GnoP has been the big spenders.

Janine

Obozo - you mean the Obozo who is your husbands "Commander in Chief"

All you righties on here that keep hitting the left for the budget problems (amazing, isn't it, that these folks go off on all their talking points no matter what the actual topic might be...), I am going to do something now that might hurt. I am going to give you facts.

As posted previously, the Republican administrations have been the ones that mess up our finances, not the Democrats. You enjoy pointing a finger at Obama for all this increase in the debt, but you fail to recognize a thing or two. The biggest thing is this little matter of Bush hiding all that money flowing out for his two wars (yes, his; Obama has them now, but he started them). Obama promised that he would be more open, and one of the things he did was actually reflect those HUGE numbers in the budget. Didn't help him politically, as the Republicans lied about it and made it seem like he suddenly spent all those trillions. Right. Next, you attack Obama for TARP - sorry, wasn't his, it was, yep, Bush's. How about the Stimulus Package? You whine and bellyache about this, but if it hadn't been put in place things would be even worse now than they already are and your income tax would be higher (there were tax breaks in that package, but unlike Bush, Obama didn't brag about it - probably a bad move on his part for the elections). Now, you will probably argue "yeah, but the Congress was under the control of the Democrats!", or something along those lines. Well, as far as the wars go, they (along with us) were lied to and led to believe all kinds of fictions, so they voted for spending trillions of dollars that are financially killing us now.

The TARP thing? Well, I am certainly no fan of banks, and I think there probably should have been more restrictions placed on the banksters, but what was the alternative? Let the major banks fail? They should not have been allowed to get as big as they did, but that's what corporatist administrations have done for us; fact is, they were, and their failures would have been catastrophic for the economy - not just ours, the world's (and it you don't care about the world's economy and thing the UN is out to get you, you need to study up on the Great Depression and see what that was all about). Personally, my mortgage is long paid off, so I wasn't worried PERSONALLY about failing banks, but sometimes you need to think about somebody besides yourself, OK?

OK, that's enough for now - especially since this is so off-topic. But PLEASE get off this "Democrats are the big spenders" rant.

Left Wing Nut Job- Lets do a little more fact straightening shall we. You claim the financial crisis was entirely bushes fault, but when Fanny and Freddie were campaigning in Washington to be allowed to take more risk guess who was number 3 on the list of Senators who took the most lobbying money from them? If you guessed Obama you would be correct. So you need to stop saying that he inherrited the mess and had not part in creating it. Further, the deregulation of the financial industry actually started with Clinton not Bush.

On another note my problem with dems spending isn't so much how much money they spend its on what. I am sick and tired of the government taking my tax dollars that I work very hard for and dolling them out to various welfare programs. If it was up to me the only welfare programs that would exist would be ones that help WORKING families make ends meet. And also once you have used the system to get an education you can't go back on it at all... you must actually use that education to support your family. That is why I don't think the democrats are fiscally responsible.

Actually, no I did not say anywhere in my post that it was all Bush's fault - nice deflection. "Fannie and Freddie" are talking points and I am not at all interested in debating with a tape recorder - and they have both been around for years, well before either Bush or Obama. And both have been spending money on politicians for years; if you have proof that any donations to Obama's campaign caused illegal activity on his part, feel free to step forward, otherwise stop with the straw man.

Your second paragraph is specious and, dare I say it, elitist. Congratulations on not being in a spot where you are unable to get a job or have lost it to outsourcing...maybe you would have a different opinion if fate had dealt you a different hand. And Republican welfare, i.e., money to the wealthy and corporate interests, is that OK with you? Maybe I'm sick and tired of my tax dollars going to interests such as Halliburton or Black Water, or to give tax breaks to corporations that send their jobs and money overseas. Whine all you want about "welfare" from the Democrats - the Republicans have got you hook, line, and sinker.

For your information I am far from an elitist. Actually I am a middle class citizen who just finished college, which I paid for myself. I was not lucky to get a job I earned it, I worked hard for it, which seems to be a novel idea in this country. As a matter of fact I grew up with nothing but my family never took a hand out, everything Ihave now I earned myself. That is why I get so sick to watch people spoung off the system while they eat better than those of us who are paying their grocery bill.

Do you have any kind of economic knowledge? I many cases corporations ship work overseas not because of greed but because in the US the corporate tax rate is astronomical, I know in NYS it is over 50%. Not to mention labor unions who force companies to pay workers a negotiated rate and benefits that not everyone deserves. That forces companies to pay wages that are not deserved, and to amplify that the fact that everyone makes the same no matter what also tends to be a demotivator, so you pay more and get less work.

Next lets talk about he greedy consumer. Because of discounters like Walmart the consumers in this country are constantly demanding more product for less money. With taxes, insurances and wages so high in this country there comes a point when a company can't manufacture goods here for the prices the consumers are demanding.

So yes I do agree with corporate tax breaks, I think the corporate tax rate needs to be dramatically lower and we could easily accomplish that if we stopped paying so much welfare. If companies could afford to manufacture here they would, which would create more jobs for the welfare recipients who actually have any intention of working.

You just finished college yet manage to come up with all these specious, uninformed comments? Can you quote the actual tax rate? Not what is on paper, but what corporations actually pay? Post that. Give us the amount of taxes paid last year by Exxon/Mobil on their $42.5B profit...go for it.

And you know what? The straw dog about "I worked hard for it" when getting a job infers that all the people that are unemployed are slackers that aren't trying to get a job. That is sophomoric and, given that you just earned a degree (supposedly), you should be aware of that.

Who ships work overseas and for what reason? Want to give that another shot? It's the unions' fault, is it? Well, let me add to your education - I work in the IT industry, which has seen rampant outsourcing. Very few in IT belong to a union, so what might have caused this shipping of jobs overseas? Let me help you out...it's called corporate greed. Many of these jobs have gone to less qualified people merely because they are cheap (initially).

The greedy consumer? Well, yes, many are greedy, but some are just broke. I'm sure that you will think they are broke because they are lazy. Wages are high? Can you tell me what the actual rate of pay is compared to, say, inflation over the last several years? And insurance? Are you sure you want to include that in your diatribe? And taxes? One of the biggest growth eras in our country was in the 1950s - do you know what the tax rates were back then?

I am sure you agree with corporate tax breaks...screw the middle class, give the rich and the corporate whatever they want. Thanks. I'll bet you're one of those that think the wealthy should continue to get tax breaks so that they can create jobs, even though that has not happened in the ten years that they have already had them. And it isn't going to.

Thanks for lecturing me on my economic knowledge. Maybe next you can teach me how to program.

Do you even know the definition of unemployment? People who aren't trying to get a job aren't counted toward the unemployment rate, it only measures people who want a job but can not have one. I said I just finished college, I didn't say I was a 22 year old with no life experience. In fact I have a house and a family to support. And yes I do say I have a job because I worked hard for it, when rampant layoffs happen you don't think its the hard workers that are first on the chopping block do you? Yes many people during this recession have lost their employment due to corporate cut backs and elimination of entire departments. They are unemployed not collecting welfare, there is a difference.

Exxon Mobil payed 15.119 billion in taxes in 2009 giving them a tax rate of 43.47% http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312510042929/d10k.htm#fin94192_20 Doesn't it seem a bit extreme to you to ask a company to give almost half its profits to the government in taxes just so the government can dole it out to people who sit on their butts eating bonbons and watching soap operas all day.

You work in the IT industry and wonder why your jobs are going over seas, think about it. Our education system is sub-par at best, they are as qualified or often times more so and work for half the wage. When you walk into the store do you buy the American made product even if its twice the price, I doubt it. And anyway how is levying more taxes and restrictions on companies going to solve the problem? If anything your making it worse.

Yes the unions play a big part in it. They had a time when they were needed, now they are just forcing companies to pay people more than they are worth. I didn't say wages are high I said when you establish a system where everyone gets the same no matter what there are many that are overpaid, and some that are underpaid. Either way you get less productive workers.

Broke or greedy it doesn't matter as long as they demand more for less what is a company supposed to do. You act like they should just give up making a profit, do you know what a business is? Let me enlighten you a business is in business to make money... bottom line if they can't make money they go out of business.

I am the middle class you idiot, I don't want to screw them or give a bunch of money to the rich. What I want to see is people keep their hard earned money, both individuals and corporations. I want to stop seeing people milk the system and the taxpayers for all they are worth. You have a lot to say about my corporate beliefs but you haven't criticized my comments about Americas welfare recipients... probably because I'm right.

Your unemployment vs not working argument is specious and I have no idea what your point is other than an elitist "they don't want to work but I do" attitude. Yeah, elitist.

Next, you said this:

Exxon Mobil payed 15.119 billion in taxes in 2009 giving them a tax rate of 43.47% http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312510042929/d10k.htm#fin94192_20 Doesn't it seem a bit extreme to you to ask a company to give almost half its profits to the government in taxes just so the government can dole it out to people who sit on their butts eating bonbons and watching soap operas all day.

Who did they pay those taxes to? From Forbes.com:

No. 2: ExxonMobil

Sales: $311 billion
Pretax income: $37.3 billion
Income taxes: $17.6 billion
Tax rate: 47%

None of ExxonMobil's income taxes were paid in the U.S. In 2008 the company's income tax bill was $36 billion.

Oh, sorry, nice try. And the "sit on their butts eating bonbons and watching soap operas" statement is also elitist. We all get the idea that you are better than these awful people, so you don't have to keep posting it.

Yeah, I'm in the IT industry, and I see people that are very good at what they do that can't get a job because somebody overseas is cheap - this has nothing to do with education or abilities. While there are those that are from offshoring firms that are competent, the majority are not, regardless of how many degrees they may have gotten. To say otherwise is ignorant and points out that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You did say wages are high, as well:

With taxes, insurances and wages so high in this country there comes a point when a company can't manufacture goods here for the prices the consumers are demanding.

You can lie all you want, but until your posts are erased, perhaps you had best be sure what is already here before you lie about it.

On the other hand, I did not say that businesses should not make money, and you saying that points out the weakness of your arguments. If you have to make things up to prove a point, it just shows you do not have a point to make in the first place. I was at our local mall last night and it is more than half vacant; I'm sure all those places are making money, huh? But if you feel you are correct in standing by companies that continually ship jobs overseas, you might consider that the consumer base is shrinking more and more each day, and there are no people to keep those stores in business. In the end, they pinch pennies only to kill themselves in the long run.

Thanks for calling me an idiot; once again, it proves you have no real argument and need to resort to name calling. If you are the middle class, it is about time you woke up and realized you are screwing yourself. And, no, your broad attacks on welfare recipients is not correct. There are those on welfare that have no other choice, even people that try hard to do better. However, they do get to listen to elitists like you that impugn their motives just because they may have fallen on hard times. Very nice.

As far as the high wage comment I thought you were referring to my argument about unions. And what I meant in that comment that wages are high her compared to other countries. My intention was not to lie, that would be futile since it is printed. Forgive me if I didn't go back and read my entire post before my reply.

What I meant about unemployment was that I'm not talking about the unemployed. There are people out there without jobs that want one and can't find one, its because we are in a recession. You brought up wages vs inflation well how about unemployment vs inflation. As soon as the unemployment rates begin to fall again inflation is going to skyrocket. Partly because of normal economic pressures and partly because of the billions the government has put out there in their failed attempts at a bail out.

As far as your post about Exxon do you believe everything you read? First the numbers don't add up their bill was 36 billion but none was paid where does that come from? The numbers I got are directly off their SEC filings, so forgive me if I don't find your data compelling. If you want to be convincing try siting your entire source not just the bits and pieces that suit your argument.

Your the ignorant one if you think your education is superior to those in the middle east, where most IT jobs get outsourced. Our education system is a failure, people overseas learn twice what we do before they even finish high school. The people hired for white collar jobs overseas are just as competent possibly more so that workers here, same thing with non citizen workers who are working here. The only time your argument might fly is when talking about manufacturing jobs, but cost is the bottom line there.

There is no weakness in my agruement all you can manage to say is how greedy corporate America is, while for some reason you seem to think its okay to drag along bottom feeders with no work ethic. And before you say I'm an elitist, which is getting old by the way, I'm not talking about the unemployed or the victims of circumstance who just need a hand. I'm talking about generations of system using trash, the type of people who keep having kids that they don't take care of so they can collect a bigger welfare check and who instead of teaching their kids a strong work ethic teach them how to abuse the system. I'm talking about people who will do anything to avoid finding a job, and there are many. Why should we punish people who earn their money so we can reward those that don't?

Have you considered that if we would relax some of the controls and taxing maybe more jobs would stay here. I don't think outsourcing jobs is a good thing, but sometimes you have to look at the big picture many companies don't have a choice. If you continue to raise taxes and regulations your only going to see more of the same. Try a few less regulations a lower tax rate and eventually it will be cheaper to manufacture here, because overseas shipping is expensive. You have to make it worth it for a company to do business here. You can't just keep levying taxes to pay welfare because eventually we'll all be a nation of consumers with no businesses to buy from.

How is wanting to keep more of my tax dollars screwing myself? What gives you the right to rob the rich to feed the poor? How about we go back to nature and let the weak ones die off. Because supporting them and dragging them along with us is making our society as a whole weaker. As long as someone didn't get their money from stealing what do you care how much they have? I know its your I'll never be anything more than middle management mentality that makes you jealous isn't it, you know you'll never have a snow balls chance at anything more so you don't want anyone else to either.

It would be "citing", not "siting", and the point is that they paid their income taxes to other countries. You might want to check into that before blowing off the statement.

Now, addressing my ignorance regarding education in the Middle East as opposed to in the US, the bulk of the IT outsourcing is in India, which is not in the Middle East, but that's OK. And they teach them, at least in IT, to compartmentalize. In other words, Person A's job is to code, Person B's job is to test, Person C's job is to analyze - get it? Here, we were taught that you need to be able to do it all, or at least understand what the impact is of each piece on the other. Instead, we get code that is poorly written and modules that do not work well together, if at all, and little or no testing. Yeah, that's superior. You want to lecture me about education and how much better it is, especially in IT? You have got to be kidding. And you want to know what is even better? They are taught to believe the same tripe you are pushing, so they have a superior attitude that they do not deserve, so they won't even listen to constructive criticism. Again, I am generalizing here, as there are always exceptions, but the majority of the time what I am telling you is what is happening. You can blow smoke all you want, but it does not change the truth.

And it's too bad it you are tired of hearing me call you an elitist, but it is what it is. As long as you insist on using the "welfare queen" argument against helping people, you are going to hear it. While I am well aware that there are abusers out there, there are abusers in every walk of life at every level of income. It is a specious argument at best.

Yeah, let's have fewer regulations and just get rid of taxes. Then we can live in a bankrupt country that is completely polluted and full of widows and widowers from work-related accidents, not to mention those burdensome handicapped people injured on the job. Great idea...let's roll back the calendar to 1890.

Rob the rich to feed the poor? Terrific - guess that makes me Robin Hood, huh? And the "jealous" argument is one best saved for recess. Remember, when you have no real argument, the best thing to do is make personal attacks. It should work well for you in your professional life.

Thank you for pointing out my typo, what was that about lack of arguement and personal attacks?

My point exacty what countries did they pay it to,where is the proof of this. You tell me to check my facts but how can I do that when all you give me is what you want me to see. Of course tax money was paid to other countries, did you take into consideration what money was earned in other countries? That doesn't change how much they need to pay in taxes here.

I know most IT jobs are sourced to India. As a matter of fact I work with many Indian citizens at my company and can attest to the fact that their education is as good or better than ours. You seem to have a superiority complex, always thinking your better than them. Why shouldn't they be taught to believe they are as good as we are, do you think they should bow down at your feet or what.

I don't have a problem helping people who need a hand up, but the programs in this country give a hand out instead. By all means help someone get an education if they can't afford it, help a single mom pay for day care so she can go to work, and help make ends meet when your best efforts aren't enough. The problem is so many people don't put forth any effort, of all the people I've met who are on the system in some way only about 1/4 are actually using it for its intended purpose, to help get them back on their feet. The rest are users who abuse the system and the way its set up they are allowed to continue to do so.

I don't say get rid of taxes and regulations I said reduce them. There are so many stupid rules that are not intended to protect employees but rather generate revenue for the government that could be removed. I am well aware that we need taxes to sustain a government but 35-60% is extremely excessive. The company I used to work for makes under 20 million per year in revenue and in New York state is subject to a 60% corporate tax rate, does that seem fair to you? I'm not talking about jeopardizing peoples safety, simply allowing companies to function efficiently.

And yes I do say your jealous. Would you still have the same arguements if you had the talent/ambition to become one of those people who earns over 250K who will lose their tax breaks if Obama has his way. How would you feel then, willing to just hand over your hard earned money so people who are as you say less fortunate, I say lazy system abusers, can have some?

Will you two give it a break? You are giving this poor soul a headache trying to keep up with who is the best educated, etc. Thought this page was about gays in the military. Left Wing, it's clear what your position is, LeahMarie, I'm not so sure?

Willy T. - I fully support gays in the military, I don't think someones sexual orientation should be a factor. I'm sure there are people in the military that are uncomfortable with the idea, but they are a minority and they will need to get with the times and get over it. Funny how we can do this much arguing and actually be on the same side of the matter at hand.

Yeah, typo - like I believe that. Your posts are filled with misspellings and grammatical errors and you want me to believe that it was merely a typo. I guess I will have to agree with you about the state of our educational system. If you think that is an attack, so be it...but you first need to consider getting off your high horse.

I gave you the site that had the information, Forbes.com, so lay off the lie about me hiding where I got my information. And the point was not that they paid tax to other countries, but that you cited they paid all those taxes to the US, which is untrue. We are not debating what other countries charge for taxes, but what the US charges, and you know it - quit with the attempts at misdirection.

Are you involved in IT? You know all about what is going in with the outsourcing in IT? I have a superiority complex? Specious once again. I have seen a $13MM project go down the tubes because the Indian development was so poor that the project self-destructed. Who saved money there? And they are NOT taught that they are equal to us, but that they are better than us - defend that. You apparently would like to see your own country go down the tubes just so you will be right. Wonderful.

The "hand out" vs. "hand up" argument is divisive and it is meant to be. You seem to be the one with the superiority complex. Give it a rest.

Who is paying federal taxes at 60%? You just like throwing scary numbers around? Let me tell you this, if you are paying 60% in federal taxes you need to find a new accountant and, perhaps, a good tax attorney. If you want to talk about state taxation, let's try to compare apples with apples, OK? If New York is charging high corporate taxes, what would you like your members of Congress do about it? See, they have nothing to do with state laws and/or taxation, so what is your point?

I would like to make a bazillion dollars a year, but that does not mean I am jealous. Even using that as an attack point is juvenile. If I were lucky enough to be in a higher tax bracket, I would be happy to be there. If I were there and were greedy enough to not want to pay my fair share, I guess I could find a good accountant that could help me achieve that.

Now, addressing the "lazy system abusers" part, since you cop that attitude so much, when I was much younger, we moved from an affluent area to one far less prosperous in order to take care of my grandparents. As it turned out, times got really tough for us, as there wasn't much work there and we wound up on welfare, which I hated. We ate crappy food and lived like paupers - yeah, it was terrific. Folks like you would look down their noses at us because we were on welfare, but it was that or starve. While I now am comfortable and make a good living, those times were awful, and people like you that strike your judgmental poses make me ill. Love the "holier than thou" attitude.

Sorry, Willy, but I posted the above a couple of hours after I wrote it - had some actual work to do and got distracted by the real world. In any event, none of this has a thing to do with the topic at hand, but I think the economics thing is irritating and get tired of the "it's all the Democrats fault" and the "lazy welfare abusers" talking points. Most people that talk about welfare have no idea what it's actually like to be there, but I can tell you it is pure Hell for most that have to actually deal with it.

Wow, I'm the one with the holier than thou attitude. You act like your Gandhior something championing for the poor. Well I got news for you, the people ruining this country are the ones your championing for. As far as my spelling or grammar, who are you my English teacher. I didn't realize I was being graded. I'm so sorry Mr. Nut Job I'll try harder next time - there happy.

You did not give my the information you gave me a website address, how about a link to the actual article. Of course you don't want me to find the actual article, because then I would know you are pulling the information out of your rear. If I could split out the US based taxes I can guarantee the tax rate would be higher than the 47% paid overall. http://www.taxrates.cc/ Gives federal tax rates for most countries, if you look you will see the US is higher than most, with the exception of Japan.

I did not say they paid 60% in Federal taxes, do you see that any where? I said they paid 60% in corporate taxes and listed the state as a reference. You can't just talk about federal taxes you have to look at the big picture. When did I say I only held congress accountable for this problem, there is a great deal of trouble at all levels of government. The reason I use New York as an example, is A) I live there and B) it is controlled by democrats. New York state has some of the highest tax rates in the country, in fact I think the top 5 counties in percentage based property taxes are all in New York. Funny coincidence they also have some of the best welfare benefits in the country. People actually move to New York to collect welfare, while businesses and tax paying citizens are leaving in droves.

If I were there and were greedy enough to not want to pay my fair share

What exactly is your fair share? How much are you really willing to give away? If you are really willing to give away almost half your income then by all means go ahead, but forgive me if I like to keep some of the money that I EARNED instead of giving it away.

You should have felt shamed being on welfare. Not being able to take care of yourself and family without assistance should be shameful, and you should be embarrassed to go to the store using food stamps. Yes, I realize that for some it is that or starve and they have to do it, and that's fine, but if we start glorifying it everyone will do it. There are so many alternatives out there, what about asking your family, or getting another part time job. These options should be explored first and welfare should be an absolute last resort. I hear people talk about using food stamps almost like they are proud of it, and it makes me sick. There is no shame in not being able to care for your family anymore, what happened to pride, doesn't anyone have pride anymore?

While I'm at it why do you think I want to see this country in ruins?

You apparently would like to see your own country go down the tubes just so you will be right.

What I want is to see the American dream. At one point this was the place where you could work hard and become anything you wanted if you just had the drive and dedication. Instead its become the place where you don't need to work the government does it all for you.

You people have been giving up more and more control to the government, and where exactly has it gotten you? Our education system is a mess, companies can't afford to do business here, and its getting to the point that you need a government official to tell you when you can take a crap and how much toilet paper to use when you do. Yes, your way has done wonders for us as a society. Instead of a group of proud working Americans we have a division between those who refuse to work and those that have to carry them. Welcome to your America.

God doesn't have anything to do with this, you're free to believe how you wish, but you cannot push your personal religious beliefs on a nation with secular values and free choice.

God has everything to do with this and it is not my beliefs but God's Law.

Cannkrid- You sound like one of those idiots protesting at soldiers funerals holding up all those hateful signs applauding the deaths of these brave soldiers.

You are entitled to your beliefs, and to worship the God of your choice, BUT both you and your God sound like douchebags to me!!!

You believe what you choose to believe. Don't try to shove your personal beliefs down other people's throats.

@Cannkrid: "it is not my beliefs but God's Law"

The only law I go by is that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You WILL bow down to her power or suffer the wrath of her noodly vengeance!!!

Why do you thing your personal religious views should have any bearing on U.S. military policy?

On a more personal level, I am pleased to inform you that not all who believe in G-d believe that G-d is as unaccepting as you think G-d is. I am fortunate to be a part of a religion that embraces everyone, without regard to sexual orientation.

Please don't quote fiction if you're trying to make a point. You might as well cite to the destruction of Barad-Dur for proof of your position. Nothing in the bible ever actually happened, you see, so using it as an analogy is just plain foolish.

Cannkrid ~ dude that's Old Testament. The Old Testament also says we should be stoning people and killing bulls for sacrafice. Do you do those things?

Because my God says to love your neighbor as your self. The greatest thing we can do is to love one another. Does any of this sound familiar? Or maybe you haven't made it that far into the Bible.

You have your beliefs and that's fine, but why don't you try and keep them to yourself. I realize your one of those people who has no moral compass of his own so you need a priest/pastor/Rabi or whatever to tell you what is right or wrong. I also understand that you are to ignorant to form your own opinions about anything and therefore are unable to do anything but recite scripture. My point is we've all heard it before and its getting really old.

BhamMan, why don't you spend some time actually reading the bible before you send out this tripe? Timothy is in the New Testament:

1 Timothy 1:9-11 (New International Version)

⁹ We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰ for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine ¹¹ that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

I guess it's you who hasn't made it that far into the bible.

New International Version, which is translated from which version, translated from which version, translated from which version, before you get to the original Greek text? And of course, you also have to blindly accept the words of Paul, a closeted homosexual who was actually writing about his own battles with his sexuality. Plus, after all of these centuries of translations of translations of translations, no one really knows the true meaning of the words of the original text.

Leave it to a Christian to think that they're beliefs trump everyone else's.

The fact of the matter is that ALL people's taxes go to help fund the military -- yes, even the gays. Regardless of your opinion, if the American people want their tax dollars to cover a non-discriminatory military, they deserve it.

People will be reading your ignorant comments in 50 years and gasping at your lack of reason, not to mention intelligence.

Cannkrid, if I understand your "logic" correctly, God is mad at the U.S. because of what you perceive to be a lack of proper religious morality and we are going down as a result. If your belief has any foundation in reason, why is China ascending? After all, China is officially a nation that does not believe in God or religious beliefs. (Many Chinese follow some form of religion most of which are not Christian.)

TW-417267 Well actually China has more Christians in it than the US and Christianity is a powerful unstopable movement in China. Maybe that's why God is Blessing China instead of the US.

Are His blessings the earthquakes, the mudslides, the floods, or what?

@Truth:

Try reading Genesis 18, 19. It's in the Old Testament. Or did you skip that too?

BJON-

We trail most civilized nations in education, healthcare, and individual wealth. Why would we not trail in this area too?

I am just surprised this Republican pollster, Bill McIntruff, is so short-sighted that he's super proud of America on this subject. He seems to think we're the only nation that can do such a thing as allow GAYS to serve openly... As if only America is up to the challenge. Freedom lovin' America is the best. AMERICA!! AMERICA!! As if other nations haven't even thought of the concept. He sounds oblivious to reality, which is typical of even moderate Republicans. It is a problem with the right wing in America, unable to see anything outside our borders. It is GREAT NEWS that we're becoming more progressive, but we are still as a nation more socially backwards and fundamentally religious than other civilized nations. I don't really hold too much nationalist sentiment, no nation-state is superior just for existing, so we need to value what is great about America without covering up what is desperately in need of change and progress. It is ABSURD we are debating this, gay people should serve openly and most importantly HONESTLY in our military.

Really, was that necessary? Your not funny, actually your sick little joke makes you look very ignorant.

That's an awfully strong reaction to a harmless little pun...relax! (speaking of ignorant...it's "You're", darling, not "your")

Its "harmless little jokes" like that that really hurt so many people. When everyone starts making jokes like that it makes gay bashing seem okay, and its not. I don't know how you meant it but its not funny! Thank you for the grammar correction by the way.

This is ridiculous! You are clearly an angry person with a lot of time on your hands. The pun had nothing to do with gay or gay bashing.....and if you didn't know "how I meant it", how are you so sure it's offensive or that you needed to comment ? You seem to have penchant for the word "ignorant", I read your comments to others (wondering if this is typical of you....yup!) It seems that everybody else but you is ignorant in your eyes, amazing!

One more thing - I'm gay.....guess you were "ignorant" of that fact, huh?

I find it funny that you can put me in a box as an angry person who calls everyone ignorant because I used the word twice. I still don't think you comment was funny no matter how you meant it, and the fact that you are gay and you posted that really surprises me. I have several close friends who are gay and have had to really struggle because of peoples "harmless little jokes" so forgive me if I don't think it is funny no matter who it comes from.

SEC, whether you are gay or not, it was in poor taste and, obviously, was not harmless. Also, you probably should not address someone as "darling" unless you know them; otherwise, it is rather demeaning, especially given the context.

Hey I thought it was funny, so did my Boyfriend of 17 years

I have to say, I can't see how it's offensive either. I thought it was cute. and have to agree that its confusing for someone to be offended when they say they don't know what the person meant?

The teachings of Christ in the New Testament offers many great life lessons, and the majority of Christians in the US are humble and giving people.

With that said we have our religous radicals, just like Islam.

When you still have a state in the United States that allow churches to pass rattlesnakes believing if you have faith in Jesus the snake won't bite you, or church members that are disrupting servicemens' funerals with their hateful rhetoric, Catholic as well as Protestant church leaders molesting children, planned parenthood Doctors murdered and the Social Conservative movement in this country AND we focus only on killing the radical muslims???

Excellent question...they are very good at PR, however. Even though it should be obvious that it was not in their best interests, many voted for the conservatives on the tickets. Whether it's because they all think they are going to get the winning lottery ticket and will reap the benefits of the rich, or because they cannot see what is actually happening right in front of them instead of what they are TOLD is happening, I don't know.

For those that don't know Lester Maddox was a Georgia Republican Politician in the 60s and 70s who used to autograph ax handles in Underground Atlanta.

Why axe handles? Because it was his weapon of choice for beating blacks.

I am sure if Lester was running today he would be a proud member of the tea party and probably have a Palin endorsement.

You're right, the practical aspects of getting rid of DADT are unsurmountable, and the soldiers will never adjust.

Oh wait, there are something like 35 or 40 other countries that have had gays serving openly in the military for years, without incident or conflict or need for any huge adjustment of either physical facilities or mental attitudes.

I guess you think our soldiers aren't as tough or adaptible as those in other countries.

As far as the last sentence in your post, why is that at all relevant to the issue at hand? Besides the number of gay individuals on the planet is considered to be a pretty stable number over time. It's not growing just because people are willing to accept it and not discriminate against gays. There will always be plenty of babies being born - I don't think eliminating DADT is going to lead to the extinction of the human race.

Sure the USAF is a great example with all of the crazy Christian fundamentalist coming out of the Air Force Acadamy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/acad-a30.shtml

Talk about reducing the debt, we should put the Air Force back under the Army and call it the Army Air Corps.

We only have an Air Force so that nerds and fat people can serve their country too.

swism, I served for ten years myself. Gays/lesbians berthing together and males berthing with females are two entirely different situations. The former has been going on forever, the latter was forbidden and still we had disciplinary problems and one court martial - they all involved heterosexuals.

Private's Life for Me, your attack on the Air Force and those who serve with honor in it is totally without merit. It calls into question any comment that you may make regarding any military matter. And, besides that, hehehe, you must have a small penis or you wouldn't need to put others down.

Pirate, as an Air Force veteran, I find your last statement more than a little offensive. Of course, given your moniker you are probably a squid, so you may not know any better. :)

Yeah, there are religious idiots at the Academy, but that ain't the only place, and it isn't only the Air Force.

OK, now, swism - I served in the USAF and in the Army Reserves after that. I am against DADT because it is stupid, and your comment was as well. You might want to check what the polls from the military actually say before you open your pie hole. I have never said "I am in the military and so I know what everybody else that has ever served thinks" or anything remotely like it. You, on the other hand, have made a broad and unsupportable statement where it appears that is exactly what you feel. Bad move.

Easy on the squids, Left Wing. Interservice sniping is not a good thing to be happening right now.

My comment "We only have an Air Force so that nerds and fat people can serve their country too" was over the top and I apologize to those I offended (TW and LWN)

TW- it is so little it is cute,