Right on Navy: Congress finally did their job of taking care of the health needs of first responders, repealing discrimination in the military, ratifying a treaty with Russia. Now they can go home.

BTW: rojo just earned a flag.

what a lame duck session this has been. who's the biggest loser..... grumpy John McCain.

Make that two flags for rojo for being a douche-bag...and a really bad troll.

Sorry, Pius...

The "biggest loser" is the Democratic Party.

They've lost a helluva lot of weight...63 seats in the House, and 6 seats in the Senate.

Lol...

@ Rojos Morality? No, discrimination. To discharge an otherwise completely qualified soldier because of his or her sexual orientation IS discrimination. It is also shortsighted and mean spirited.

Rojo is saying this as he's thumping his bible and screwing his neighbor's wife

Or visa-versa. Lame Duck equals Dead Goose. For a Congress that has many losers going home for good to do what they did over the last few weeks is disgraceful. Notice as usual that the Dem. cabal stayed together, only the Repubs. voted in a bipartisan way. The future is bleak.

Make that 3 flags. Come on Bob, be nice to the neighbors wife, it's probably the husband he's screwing, anyway.

Yes, I deserve a flag for that but I just couldn't help myself.

Okay, we got the names, same old Rinos, two lame duck republicans, that were alread kicked out.

That should have told Brown, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Alevander and Corker, something.

The rest of you that voted with Obama 4 times in the last two weeks, we'll see you in the primaries in 2012.

We''ll send you a message you will have trouble misunderstanding.

Totally agree. What a great end to the year. I'm sorry the so-called Dream Act didn't pass - maybe next time.

John, the people learning a lesson in 2012 will be the die-hard right wingers who refuse to play nice. Obama has shown he can work both sides of the aisle.

US Navy Delusional Veteran - Retired

What a great week for this country.

Yea, 17 years and they drop a boggus slanted survey that doesn't cite 1 positive effect for the military in a lame duck session and pass it with fired guys at the last minute. (I thought you repected the military - not as much as the gay activists?) Great job, Congress.

Have 10 years to work on taxes, 2 years with complete control and drop to the last minute in a lame duck session. Good job, Dems.

Have 11 months to do 11 appropriation bills. Wait till the last minute and dump them all together, add 6,500 earmarks and load of other crap.... Great job, Dems.

START? Agreement in April, Obama lets verification slide while he stalls introducing it till the lame ducks. The worst treaty of this type in history? Have the intelligence or courage to defend it?

This shows what we as a Nation can do when we put the country first and politics last.

Yea, this is the way to run a country, last minute jam jobs.

What a tool.

John,

Santa not the only one making a list and checking it twice?

Good job.

Difficult to understand why we disarm just as Iran and North Korea become nuclear capable. Tell me how we are better off please.

So which is it, Booby? In more than one post, you cite a survey, and make up numbers from it, to bolster your bigoted argument and then, in another post call that very same survey a ". . . boggus [sic] slanted survey . . .". And when asked how it is "boggus [sic]" or "slanted", you never answer. This is not unusual behavior from you, Booby. I was just wondering what it is like to be a certifiable schizophrenic?

In the end, all of your hateful, bigotted spewing posts are moot and any others from now on have been rendered moot by this President you hate so much. Get over it, Booby, the bill has passed.

10 years to work on taxes?!?! Holy Cr@p! Booby just told us that the Republican/TP Inc. party never had an 8 year Presidency nor 6 years control of Congress. DOH! So that's what happened!

Tool, Booby?

Tool, thy name is Booby. A complete tool of the Republican/TP Inc. party and too stupid to know it.

10 years? Really, Booby? What happened to those 8 years of President Bush and 6 years during the last 10 years when the Republican/TP Inc. party controlled both houses of Congress?

Let the START treaty verification slide until the lame duck session despite being passed out of committee with over 1,000 questions asked by the Republican/TP Inc. and answered? Really, Booby?

Do you even comprehend or know what you write? I think this may be a personal low for you, Booby.

Booby, before you call anyone else delusional, especially a disabled American military veteran that served to protect your sorry a$$, you might want to check out your own beliefs. Until you are old enough to serve and have actually served, you have no right or credibility to disparage any veteran, left, center or right.

If any veteran knows who you really are and what you have just written, I hope they b1tch slap your sorry a$$ all the way to boot camp where you'll find out just what it means when you attack another person who has served in the military, especially those who served and were disabled during that service.

Booby, you need to search that self righteous, bigoted, disrespectful childish soul of yours and try to purge the darkness you will find there. You are despicable.

The responses you liberal dems are posting doesn't reflect much of a favorable character. You all just won the name calling contest, if there was ever a doubt as to who the winner would be. Some of you write as though you were the only ones to have ever served in the military. Hundreds of thousands on both right and left have served with honorable distinction. Get used to it Matty. You're not impressing anyone, but your rants make some people sick.

Yea, 17 years and they drop a boggus slanted survey that doesn't cite 1 positive effect for the military in a lame duck session and pass it with fired guys at the last minute. (I thought you repected the military - not as much as the gay activists?) Great job, Congress.

As usual you lie;

Today the Pentagon released its official report on the effects of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the results are largely positive. While some opposition and division within the ranks is revealed by the survey, the report concludes by strongly supporting a DADT repeal.

Particularly revealing are survey results on how repealing DADT would affect task cohesion, important because “unit cohesion” is an oft-named defense of the ban on gay servicemembers. Across a variety of questions, over 70% of servicemembers surveyed believed that repealing DADT would affect unit cohesion positively, equally positively and negatively, or not at all. Less than 30% of those surveyed believed that it would affect unit cohesion negatively or very negatively. Most questions related to social cohesion were also 70% or more in neutral or positive categories.

Overall, the Pentagon summarized all survey results as strongly supporting repeal of DADT. After analyzing survey results and effects of integration on other militaries, the Pentagon concluded that “the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low.” This is an important step in the process of repealing DADT, and lends support to current Congressional efforts to do so.

http://harvardcrcl.org/2010/11/30/pentagon-publishes-survey-supporting-dadt-repeal/

Have 10 years to work on taxes, 2 years with complete control and drop to the last minute in a lame duck session. Good job, Dems.

Another lie. Republicans were stalling extension of the tax cuts WELL before the election;

Obama, who is to deliver a major speech on the economy in Cleveland, will apparently call for the cuts to be extended for all households making less than $250,000 per year. Rates for the top two percent of income-earners would revert to their pre-Bush levels, which were set under Bill Clinton in 1993.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/07/obama_bush_tax_cuts

Have 11 months to do 11 appropriation bills. Wait till the last minute and dump them all together, add 6,500 earmarks and load of other crap.... Great job, Dems.

Oh look, something ELSE that Republicans have been blocking for months;

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/in-case-you-think-gridlock-in-d-c-is-a-good-thing/19349055/

Finally, and most significantly for investors, is the Obama administration's proposed, $3.8 trillion fiscal 2011 budget. An election year and Congress's desire to get work done quickly to allow ample time to get home to their districts to campaign suggest that both parties will agree on a budget for the next fiscal year in a normal time frame, by August. But Republicans, concerned that Obama's proposed budget -- which contains a projected a $1.6 trillion deficit -- spends too much, could seek changes that Obama and other Democrats oppose -- leading to gridlock, and no budget resolution.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/adRS7Q

START? Agreement in April, Obama lets verification slide while he stalls introducing it till the lame ducks. The worst treaty of this type in history? Have the intelligence or courage to defend it?

Yup, yet another lie. A continuing pattern for our boy bob. From clear back in AUGUST;

Intent on obstructing anything that President Obama proposes, the Senate Republicans--with a few exceptions--are blocking a crucial nuclear arms treaty that would allow the U.S. military to continue to make on-site inspections of Russia's nuclear arsenal. The information that we get from those inspections gives U.S. intelligence a wealth of data, and the Pentagon a solid base on which to make decisions about the Russian nuclear threat and the means and costs of assuring our own safety.

But because of the Republican tactics, the old START agreement--which was endorsed by Republican and Democratic administrations in the years since the Cold War ended--has expired. So, for the first time in 15 years the Pentagon has lost its ability to inspect the Russian strategic nuclear bases.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/john-farrell/2010/08/19/On-START-Treaty-US-Suffering-From-Senate-Republican-Ignorance.html

What a tool.

Perfect self-description, bob. You're proven that repeatedly.

Pickles,

And when asked how it is "boggus [sic]" or "slanted", you never answer. This is not unusual behavior from you, Booby. I was just wondering what it is like to be a certifiable schizophrenic?

From Dec. 20:

bob-1805084

Dr,

and you've never given any specifics about why you believe it to be slanted, biased, or poorly conducted. When questioned, you simply reiterate or don't respond. Really, I'd like to see specifics of the bias or how it was slanted.

Table 7. Military Readiness

Summary says 67% of Service member said that repeal would have a positive or no effect on personal readiness.

That is true and what was promoted. Sounds good, right?

Sounds a lot better than saying - Only 7.1% of Service members said that repeal would have a positive effect on personal readiness.

Or how about.... (from same table)

Almost 5 Times as many respondents said that repeal would have either a negative or very negative effect on their unit's ability to train well together as said those that said repeal would have a positive effect.

That doesn't sound so good, does it? (And that isn't even the combat guys!)

Same table - just slanted a different way.

• #1.60 - Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:02 AM EST

Not a bigot, doesn't effect me. US Navy stands up for the gat activists. I have stood up for the military in combat arms that are against it. Don't care about Obama. He is the President and hate the direction he has taken it. Obama will be gone sooner, or later. Country will still have to deal with the problems created.

START is all on the Republicans. Should have been easy to not ratify this atrocity. They were gutless. The Senate's role on treaties is to advise and consent. 1000 non answers doesn't matter. Obama's little letter doesn't matter. Obama lies anyway. The treaty says what it says, the Senate cannot change it. START is a piece of crap on 8 different levels. The only option was to reject it, or postpone it till it could be debated and the American people became aware how bad it is, then reject it, go back and do it the right way.

About the US Navy stuff, covered it in depth yesterday, you read it. If he wants to hide behind his sobriquet, or a guy with a blow-up doll trying to defend his position - I don't care.

Bottom line - US Navy (or anyone) is delusional if they think this is the proper way to run a government.

Richard, you would have more credibility if you called out both sides (as I have done here: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/22/5696618-deal-reached-on-911-health-bill-?commentId=20229968#c20229968), it is not just the liberals who engage in name calling. I checked your posts and found that you have not engaged in it yourself and I commend you for that. However, you do yourself and your side no favors by pointing out the foibles of one side while denying those very same foibles happening on your own. Besides, Booby brought it on himself when he went after a veteran who was injured while serving.

(btw for everyone else, Richard is a 'birther')

John,

Read my reponse to Pickles. Example given is a perfect of example of why your example is slanted and misleading. Hope it doesn't go over your head.

Bottom line - Read the survey and find one instance where the positive/very positive is greater than the negative/very negative reponse. (Hint - Positve, not equally positve/negative, not no effect - POSITIVE EFFECT)

Once you can do that, I'll waste my time shooting down your other crap.

Tools?

The best tools are the tools that don't even realize they're tools, especially the ones dumber than a shovel.

BTW - One more time, not a Republican, I'm conservative.

Gee, booby, you were able to legitimately, weakly but still legitimately answer about 1% of my posts. What about the other 99%? And judging from your responses, calling you a bigot does bother you. Your bigotry is well proven by your posts but you keep denying you are a bigot and then you continuously prove you are with what you write.

Booby, your response to John B. is no response at all. It is so weak and lacks anything resembling intelligence, you might as well have said nothing.

Give it up on the blowup doll, booby, it really doesn't bother me, I don't own one and you wouldn't know how to use one, anyway. You see, booby, that 'barb' is old, was never effective in the first place and only makes you sound like a petulant child . . . wait a minute, you are a petulant child.

It's OK bob, the only reason I even respond to you is to demonstrate to others your dedication to bullying and lying. You latch on like a pit bull every time, never abandoning points that have been disproven, ignoring evidence that counters your points, twisting words out of context, and then declaring your own superiority. As a grand finale you have nothing other than personal insults. Every time.

My work here is done.

Gee, booby, you were able to legitimately, weakly but still legitimately answer about 1% of my posts

#1.16

First paragraph - You ask about survey/numbers/why slanted/never respond. I rovided you with an example of a previous post that explained / refuted everything you mentioned.

Second paragraph - Addressed your statement about me hating Obama and being bigot. (BTW- Find a bigoted statement by me. I've defended the military, lots of reasons why DADT is bad for the military, but have not attacked gays.)

Paragraph three - I made a simple true self-evident statement. Your response was inane, insipid and didn't warrant a response. Republicans and Democrats have known for 10 years the taxes were expiring and could have prepared anytime. Obama has had almost 2 years to do whatever he wants. Business needs to know years in advance for planning purposes, good argument to pass whatever he wanted he blew it. Your response was moronic and not worth reponding to.

Next post.

More moronic, insipid crap, redundant.

Answered START rant.

Another inept, moronic statement.

Next post:

US Navy stuff - addressed that.

answer about 1% of my posts. What about the other 99%

So, why don't you...

1. Point out the other 99% of what was not answered that you posted, or

2. Admit you are as stupid as you appear to be.

About the blow-up doll, you are right - I wouldn't know what to do with one. I don't understand how sick and perverted, what an utter and profound lonely loser someone would have to be to have sex with and be gratified by a piece of plastic.

John,

Couldn't come up ONE instance, huh?

I don't know about the pit bull part, but if you are going to throw rocks and call the pit bull a liar - better be ready to get chewed up if you cannot back it up. (No offense, or superiority intended - just a word of advice)

Merry Christmas John.

Booby, what John said.

I'm done with your bigoted, self righteous, sanctimonious, lying, little chickensh!t never served but always ready to attack a veteran, stupid, fatuous, sorry virgin a$$.

Ignoring the point as usual, bob. A "No Effect" answer is as good as a "Positively/Very Positively" answer in terms of repealing DADT. It's another way of saying "Why should it matter to me?" In EVERY case the COMBINATION of "No Effect" and "Positively/Very Positively" answers were FAR IN EXCESS of the "Negatively/Very Negatively" answers.

Not that you care, but to explain how this works, say someone polled me on how my work would be impacted by having someone in the office who is gay. I can't honestly say "Positively/Very Positively" because it wouldn't be true. Therefore I'd answer "No Effect" because it has no impact on me whatsoever.

The ONLY answer that justifies a net negative impact from gays in the military is "Negatively/Very Negatively." In EVERY case that number is below 35%, less than 30% for most questions. You lose.

Gnaw on that one for a while.

Matthew,

So, I'm guessing that's a 2.

You sound upset. Hope it wasn't something I said (you said nothing bothered you).

Anyway, don't take this blog stuff so seriously.

Have a Merry Christmas.

F-off, booby. I told you, I'm done with your stupid, bigoted, sorry a$$.

John B, Des Moines, IA

Yea, 17 years and they drop a boggus slanted survey that doesn't cite 1 positive effect for the military in a lame duck session and pass it with fired guys at the last minute. (I thought you repected the military - not as much as the gay activists?) Great job, Congress.

As usual you lie; - (you)

The above is the point I made and it is true, you cannot refute that fact, it is not a lie.

What if the the survey would have been framed that way? NET NEGATIVE EFFECT. Think it would have passed? Of course not.

My argument was that after 17 years, the survey was produced in a lame duck session, presented in a slanted way / framed to get the result Obama wanted and passed without serious debate in a normal Congress in a normal way.

Obama did a great job of politics and got what he wanted for the gay and gay activist vote.

But it was a social issue, not a military issue. There IS NOT ONE POSITIVE EFFECT for the military.

About your argument - Duh,..... I get it, that's how Obama framed it and what your original reply should have been. The counter to that is :

Say you are business. If you take a survey about the introduction of a new program and the results show of one group of customers: 50% say no effect - they will buy the same. 15% say they will buy 25%-50% more and 35% say they will find another supplier. Of the smaller but key / core group of customers: 67% will seriously consider leaving.

NET NEGATIVE EFFECT. Would a business make that decision?

Maybe, if it was social issue - but not for business reasons.

There is no military imperative for DADT. All I am saying. If it would have waited and been done the right way and Congress felt the social imperative out weighed the military imperative and the American people understood this - no problem.

Bottom line - Obama did a great job of getting what he wanted passed. Compliment to Obama, Dude. He out manuevered the Repubs. What's there to gnaw on?

Merry Christmas gays and gay activist. (sorry combat troops)

Your point is that you don't like it therefore you'll find some reason why it's wrong. You've demonstrated that beyond any shadow of a doubt. You've demonstrated that you're willing to twist any piece of information into a pretzel to make a point that isn't supported. You've demonstrated that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Congress DID judge that the social imperative outweight a military that overwhelmingly says no harm will come from repeal of DADT. You don't like that so you refuse to acknowledge it.

But please continue to insist that you're right. That's what you always do.

You've demonstrated that you're willing to twist any piece of information into a pretzel to make a point that isn't supported.

But my point is supported. Frustrated that you still can't refute it? Dude, glass half empty or glass half full? Different perspective, why don't you get it?

Congress DID judge that the social imperative outweight a military that overwhelmingly says no harm will come from repeal of DADT

Maybe they did, but that's not what they said. They didn't say the "We need to repeal DADT because the social imperative out weighs the military imperative." Who said that? What question was that in the survey? Are you serious? What a joke - that is why they framed the way they did - what you argued in the second response.

And you call me a bull dog?

At least I'm not a bull dog that has been beat on the head with shovel.

As predicted bob shows up to declare that his unsupported statements trump points of argument with back up and citations, then throws in a personal attack for good measure.

The prosecustion rests.

Well, my statements are supported - by the actual report. An example was provided to Matt that I referenced. I asked you to provide one instance to refute it - you couldn't. You tried to re-frame the argument, I acknowledged that was a good argument, the Obama argument and that he prevailed with. I complimented him on out-maneuvering the Repubs. But, I stood by the contention that it was still a matter of perspective, how the argument was framed.

I gave the example of the half-empty glass / half-full glass. I say it is half-empty, you say it is half-full. Neither is wrong. You still wouldn't let it go.

I did say there was a net negative effect that was being ignored. You chose to ignore this fact, or are too stupid to understand it, or effectively argue it. So one last time:

From Table 4. of the Final Report, Question 71. Respondents with combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001;

"If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he, or she is gay, or lesbian, how, if it all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission..."

In a field environment or out at sea:

Very Positive / Positive - 11.4%

Equally Positive and Equally Negative - 25.8%

No Effect - 18.6%

Very Negative / Negative - 44.3%

Obama says (on this particular question) 56% of Service members say DADT repeal will have a Positive , or no effect immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission.

TRUE Statement.

But it is also true that almost 4 TIMES as many Service members say it will have a Negative Effective as those that say it will have a Positive Effect.

It is also true to say that the NET EFFECT on immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission is NEGATIVE - 33%.

If you believe Obama's way is the best way, that there is no net negative effect why don't we setup a Pay Pal account. I will give you Obama's deal at $10.00 a percentage point - you give me the same deal on my argument. I send you money for Very Positive / Positive + Equally Positive and Equally Negative + No Effect and ignore Very Negative / Negative. You send me money for Equally Positive and Negative + No Effect + Very Negative / Negative.

No negative effect all positive on Obama's deal, right? So, either..

1. Take the deal John......

2. or simply walk away and concede you were wrong.

Let me know.

BTW - If you want to combine the whole report - that's fine. Negatives always are higher than the positives.

Let's reframe this for clarity. We'll look at another sort of person, say, bigots. We'll poll the public and see what their opinion is of bigots. The results come out as follows;

Very Negative / Negative - 11.4%

Equally Positive and Equally Negative - 25.8%

No Effect - 18.6%

Very Positive / Positive - 44.3%

Is bigotry now right, because 3 times as many people are in favor of bigotry as opposed? No, because bigotry is simply wrong.

Bigot.

Bigot?

That's all you got?

Childish, but - OK.

Prejudice? I have done nothing more than to offer/argue a different perspective, one in support of the military, particularly those in combat arms. I have said nothing against homosexuals. As I said to Matt, I'll say to you - find one comment in all my posts that's is derogatory against gays, or lesbians.

Prove it, John Boy.

The true or most definitions of a bigot relate to an intolerance of other's opinions and views (generally speaking or applied to different, races, religions, etc.)

What am I intolerant of? I have asked (in previous discussions) that since the main concern is troops in combat arms - why not compromise - Navy can repeal it, leave it intact for the Marines. Is that compromise intolerant? I have stated that if it is properly discussed in a normal Congress, not jammed during a Lame duck, and it passes - that I have no problem. How is that intolerant?

I have recognized Obama's framing of the discussion as a good argument, that he won, punked the Repubs and congratulated him on it. How is that intolerant?

US Navy posted comments that I responded to. You challenged me, I didn't come after you. I defended a different perspective that you cannot refute, challenge (and now) nor accept.

Who is intolerant of another's opinion, who is the real bigot (by definition)?

Did your inept, childish retort just get turned on you, or are you too dumb to see that too?

Kinda like when someone is too plain dumb to understand when they are not very good at something?

I was hoping you'd come back to this, and confident you would. You're using the same arguments that created segregated units in WWII. The same Arguments that protected Jim Crow right up to the Civil Rights Act. The same arguments that were used to keep women out of the military until a couple of decades ago.

The argument goes "some people just aren't comfortable with 'those people' so it just makes more sense for 'those people' to not have the same rights and privileges as everyone else."

It all sounds so civil, and it's that air of civility that deliberately sugarcoats the ugliness of bigotry. We don't need to fear the KKK or David Duke, or the Westboro Baptist Church, for that matter. Those folks are so outrageous there's little chance people won't react to them negatively.

The subtle cancer is the "reasonable" assertion that precluding the rights and privileges of a particular segment of society is "the right thing to do." The smooth salesmanship of bigotry serves only to marginalize whole classes of society, and somehow it's never "the right time" to break those chains.

So what we've come to is a place where you've been provided with every rational explanation of why this is the right thing to do and you don't care. It just isn't possible to break through your oh-so-subtle, oh-so-reasonable sounding crooning of "some people just aren't comfortable with 'those people' so it just makes more sense for 'those people' to not have the same rights and privileges as everyone else."

That's why there's only one correct answer for that argument.

Bigot.

Couldn't come up with one post, one example of my have every said anything derogatory about gays or lesbians, huh? Couldn't refute or argue your intolerence of my opinion?

You're using the same arguments that created segregated units in WWII. The same Arguments that protected Jim Crow right up to the Civil Rights Act. The same arguments that were used to keep women out of the military until a couple of decades ago.

No, I am not. The problem is sex, (not the sex of the Service member), sex. Black/Jim Crow/color of skin stuff is not the issue. BTW - Females are not in combat units - You know that right? Females share living quarters with men, John?

The argument goes "some people just aren't comfortable with 'those people' so it just makes more sense for 'those people' to not have the same rights and privileges as everyone else."

A little spurious. Gays have the same rights and privileges to serve in the military, but the military is not about civil rights - expressing sexual rights and privileges gay or straight. Civil rights? Do soldiers have the right to free speech? Can they blast Obama about his ROEs? Can they campaign in elections? On and on. Anyway, about that getting kicked out stuff - no one has been discharged since October. That's fine, no problem.

We don't need to fear the KKK or David Duke, or the Westboro Baptist Church, for that matter.

Westboro - Who cares about 20 despicable pukes? Take a Midol.

The smooth salesmanship of bigotry serves only to marginalize whole classes of society, and somehow it's never "the right time" to break those chains.

634 were kicked out last year for homosexuality, most with honorable discharge with benefits. Less than 1% of non retirement/completion of service discharges. None are getting kicked out now. 8 times as many got kicked out for being fat. 85% of homosexuals don't their units to know they are gay. That Midol help yet?

All of the above aside, you have stumbled on the real argument. I thought you had it in the post before the last, but then your emotions took over and you had to call me a bigot, an arguement you couldn't win.

Yea, prejudices of those that serve is the real issue at heart. So its a social issue, not a military issue. Duh.

All I've said all along.

I've said all along it was a social issue, a social issue that the survey shows will not harm the military. My emotions have nothing to do with it, I'm just pointing out your smooth sell of institutionalized bigotry. Correct, you haven't said anything derogatory about homosexuals. You're just saying they aren't entitled to the rights and privileges of other citizens. You're saying you're comfortable with them living in fear of discovery, or of having to choose between their military careers and being known for who they are.

The "reasonableness" of it is what makes it so wrong. That's because in reality the only thing "reasonable" is the tone of voice. The argument itself is still bigotry.

, a social issue that the survey shows will not harm the military

OK see #1.36.

You want to set up the Pay Pal account?

The argument itself is still bigotry.

That is how a bigot would respond. I am tolerent of your perspective and opinion. You are not tolerent of my perspective or opinion.

By definition, I'm not the bigot here.

Said all the above before and we're just repeating the same stuff now - waste of time.

I'm the bigot because I stand up against having the rights of others infringed. Right.

Bigot.

THIS.

At least for today, McConnell and DeMented get to sit in the corner and cry their crocodile tears while the country's business actually gets done for a change.

No one cares what a supporter of the Democratic Parasitical Party thinks.

Larry - so true!

Allelujah, praise the lord

There will be more friendly fire accidents,wait and see.

trevor - what a disgusting post. Gays have always served in the military. Only a truly uneducated individual would thing the way you do.

trevor,

Stupid and dangerous comment. I hope you aren't active duty because if you are, I hope you get kicked out of the service for this comment. No room for homophobes more interested in killing a fellow soldier, who happens to be gay, than the enemy.

MB;

Before I forget Merry Christmas to you and your family. I agree it takes both parties to get to 67, 71 or whatever. Have a safe holiday.

mixed bag....at the end who got the last laugh.....DEMS SMILING HOME TO SANTA.... GOPers, just don't choke over the xmas with anger burger.

lol...

US Navy-

As time goes by, fewer and fewer Americans have worn the the uniform and served in the U.S. Armed Forces...

I sincerely wish that more could and would serve...too many simply don't understand what military service entails. Not the sacrifices, nor the benefits.

Best wishes to you and yours.

US Navy and all of our men and women in the military - straight or gay - Merry Christmas and thank you for serving!

W. Goin:

Thank you and the same to you and your family. Stay safe my friend.

We tried that for eight years and it did not work. In fact in dam# near bankrupted this country. Try again.

You might check your history here, under Ray-gun the debt increased 189% Under Dubya, 89% Any more "conservative" president's and we'll be using chickens for checkups.

US NAVy we have no intention off allowing the leeches to continue to do what they did in the first two years of his tenure after the 5th of Jauary, he will not even be able to pass gas,

rojo - oh, you mean like Bush who started this mess?? What a short memory you have!

Yeah they did put us first,first in line to die when a war breaks out. Thanks GOP traitors!

I'm from Tn, Alexanader and Corker alread have emails telling them they will be gone in the primaries.

Charles:

Very well said. It has been a long time indeed. It was good to see both sides working together and making this country their first priority. You and your family have a very Merry Christmas. This goes for everybody who visits this board. You all have a safe and very Merry Christmas with your friends and family. 2011 is another year.

How is nuclear disarmament the right thing for all Americans just as Iran and North Korea gain nuclear capabilities? Please explain.

Conservatives write your elected reps tell them you want legislation tht allows the heterosexuals to leave the milirtary, with out prejudice.

and the mailitary may not hold thpeople past their eend of their enlistment.

Let's force a draft and force the libs and homsexuals respons for this to enter the military .

That will be fitting.

I look forward to watching the libs and homosexuals rioting in the street when the draft is announced..

ACP;

You and yours have a Merry Christmas. You have some very good points and I thank you for sharring them with us. Stay safe.

John - grow up!

John 1000006, you doth protest too much about DADT, you have me thinking you might be in the closet yourself. We are all God's children, get over it. And have a Merry Christmas.

ACP wrote:

Re: All the comments about DADT. I am a raving heterosexual. If the guy in the foxhole with me thinks I'm the cutest thing he's ever seen, he's likely to protect the snot out of my rear-guard.

Now that was funny! You made some good points, too but that first point was too good not to share.

If any nation or group really launched nukes at America or any NATO country, the automatic return fire would blow us all to hell so quick, missile defense wouldn't even matter.

This bill further endangers out country, Obam will cheerfully watch this country go down the tube to get him s a few political points.

It is a sad day when the president of the US really doesn't care what happens to the USA.

Sadder yet the leeches and their enablers will support him.

It's probably time to start thinking about getting out.

Most of the good moral parts of the country that I grew up in has surrendered to the handouters.

Talk about wasting money we don't have. When was the last time that anyone succesfully tested a missile defense system. Do you not understand that with multiple warheads being released into the near earth space within the first few minutes of intercontinental balistic missile flight that there could easily be over a hundred independently targeted warheads flying at us separately. So far we have not proved that we can consistently hit even one. We have been working on this on and off since the Reagan administration. We are far safer in negotiating with Russia and keeping our retaliatory deterent up against any smaller rogue state. There is no way to defend against a terrorist organization except to have deep intelligence capabilities. We wouldn't know without intelligence where they would come from or with what they would come. But a high tech missile launch would be the last thing to expect. If terrorists try to deliver a nuclear weapon it is almost certainly not going to be by missile attack. If Iran or North Korea are crazy enough to think about it they will be reminded to also think about retaliatory anihilation. Our weaponry and delivery capabilities are so far superior to theirs that they would be suicidal to make any such attack.

John with the zeros: If you are really thinking about leaving, may I suggest New Zealand. Peace on Earth, goodwill toward men!

trevor and John - clearly you two are related. If you knew anything you would realize all of your posts are false. We are safer with this treaty than we were without it. Try actually understanding something before you post.

Go get a life Trevor

TREVOR, the handouters are about to get very hungry,. no funding bill for any of the leeches.

I f you have beemn living off of the backs of taxpayers they may want to look for work, it is going to be a long time before there is any funding for the handouters.

Trevor: Here's what I think of your list of "real business." Veto, Veto, Veto, Veto, Veto......! Enjoy your impossible dream.

Trevor - not going to happen!

The republicans are doing what we elected them to do, the ones that voted with Obam 4 times in the lasttwo weeks will be fone in the primaries in 2012.

Try to understand, we have zero concern for the opinions of the siupporters of the Democratic Parasitical Party.

John with the zeros: please try to understand. By the 2012 primaries the vast majority of the people will be so fed up with people who think like you, that you might as well stay home from the polls. This country does not stay angry and narrow minded and fearful for long. We are a strong and resiliant people who love the spirit of working together to do the right thing. All of that started to surface this week, and the more the Republicans fight to undo progress the less success and the less influence they will have. In politics two years is a lifetime.

demo scout - well said

Bring it on? Like the past election? Enjoy your growing minority. And, you know nothing about economic growth, but everything about wealth redistribution, and socialist talking points. Good for you. You should move to France.

Wealth redistribution? You mean like what has been going on for the last 40+ years (with a brief respite in the late 1990s but accelerating to its fastest pace from 2001 - 2008) from the bottom 98% to the top 2%? Yeah, keep on screaming about wealth redistribution.

Until the 1929 crash/beginning of the Great Depression, starting in 1817, approximately every 20 (-6, +2) years, there has been a severe downturn in the US economy. Each one of these has been preceded by a period of fierce financial speculation and a redistribution of wealth to the top 1% or 2% of income earners. After 1929, the next serious downturn was 1974 when the cycle of recessions once again started and has accelerated (again, with a brief respite in the late 1990s) with the last period between downturns only lasting about 7 years.

What happened right after the 1929 downturn that allowed a 45 year span without a major recession or minor depression cycle that was happening prior to that year? What happened just before 1974 that allowed the cycle to start up again? What happened in the early 2000s that allowed such a short time between downturns and resulted in a downturn that was closer to a depression than any since 1929?

Hint: it has something to do with government regulation.